Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

THAMES CONSERVANCY BILL

[King's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Read the Third time, and passed.

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL (By Order)

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Tuesday, 13th June.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Students' Grants

Mr. George Thomas: asked the Minister of Education the number of local education authorities grants exceeding £100 per annum which were made to university students during the past year.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Tomlinson): I regret that detailed information is not available.

Mr. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that many of these authorities are giving grants below £20, which are quite inadequate for the student's needs? Would he examine this subject again?

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, but I have no information which would enable me to answer this Question. I am aware of the position mentioned in the supplementary question.

Mr. Thomas: What is the Minister doing about it?

Mr. Ralph Morley: asked the Minister of Education if he has considered the memorandum submitted to him by the National Union of Students on the raising

of the grants to recognised students who are following courses at university teacher training departments and at teachers' training colleges; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, Sir. I intend to abolish the special four-year grants for intending teachers as soon as it is clear that the number of normal university awards is sufficient to make this possible, and I am in consultation with the National Advisory Council as to the precise date. I also propose to consider improvements in the grants for training college students as soon as circumstances permit.

Secondary Grammar Schools (Welsh Language)

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Education what representations he has made to local education authorities which insist on a knowledge of Welsh being compulsory for entrance to a secondary grammar school; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Tomlinson: I have made no representations on this matter to Welsh authorities, of whom five, I understand, require some questions in the Welsh language to be attempted, but I am keeping their arrangements for conducting this important examination under observation. It seems to me that this is a matter which the Welsh authorities themselves might well consider through the Welsh Joint Education Committee.

Mr. Thomas: Will the Minister bear in mind that, where the child comes from a home where the mother is English speaking, it is a great injustice to deprive the child of secondary grammar education because it is not fluent in the Welsh tongue?

Mr. Emrys Roberts: Will the Minister also bear in mind that this matter should be left for the Welsh education authorities themselves to decide?

Mr. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that any matter of injustice is a matter for this House?

Spastic Children (Wales)

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Education the number of spastic children in Wales; and what advice he is giving to the Joint Education Committee for Wales on this subject.

Mr. Tomlinson: I have no separate figure distinguishing spastic from other physically handicapped children. There were in January last 52 physically handicapped children sent to special schools (excluding hospital schools) by Welsh local education authorities, and 179 further children in Wales, whose names had been put down by authorities for admission to special schools for the physically handicapped. I have given no specific advice to the Joint Education Committee for Wales on this subject, but I should be glad to arrange for my officers to discuss with that body the whole problem of making adequate special school provision for physically handicapped children in Wales.

Mr. Thomas: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that most helpful reply, may I ask him to bear in mind that there are a fair number of these spastic children in the City of Cardiff alone and that they are quite bright mentally but are handicapped physically and need some special provision?

Mr. Tomlinson: It is for that reason that I have asked the whole of the local authorities, both in England and Wales, to consider jointly the provision of schools for children of this type.

Ceramics (Proposed College)

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Education (1) if he will provide a national school of ceramics in or near the City of Stoke-on-Trent; and, in view of developments, if he will ensure that it provides for all branches of pottery work, building materials, refractions, abrasives and new and synthetic materials;
(2) what steps it is proposed to take that will ensure full provision for technical and artistic training for the pottery and allied industries, greater provision of apparatus and training in laboratories where experience could be gained in the examination of pottery bodies and other materials; and
(3) if he is aware that in 1937 a deputation representing the City of Stoke-on-Trent and the Staffordshire Education Committee after a visit to continental pottery and art colleges during May and June, 1937, recommended the construction and organisation of a national ceramic school, the provision of training

facilities for key people in the pottery, building and other industries; if he has given consideration to the recommendations; and what action he proposes to take, with a view to implementing them.

Mr. Tomlinson: Proposals for a national school of ceramics at Stoke-on-Trent were considered both before the war and after. In 1947 the industry was informed of my readiness to establish such a college, but at that time sufficient support was not forthcoming from industry. The local education authority for Stoke-on-Trent have now made considerable progress with plans for a college of ceramics at an estimated cost of £400,000 to include provision of the type which my hon. Friend has in mind. I am considering whether this can be included in the 1951 programme with the limited resources available.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Will my right hon. Friend inform me if he is receiving support from the industry? In addition, in view of the fact that a university is being provided, would it not be a good thing to link these two projects together?

Mr. Tomlinson: The difference between the method of dealing with this question through a national college and dealing with it through the local authorities is that if it is dealt with by means of a national college the industry is expected to put up a good deal of the money. If there is now a desire on the part of the industry for that, I am prepared to look at it again.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: Would the Minister say whether the organised workers have been considered in this matter and, if not, will he take an opportunity of discussing it with them?

Mr. Tomlinson: The organised workers are consulted through their trade union organisation, but I have not discovered that they have a lot of financial backing for a college of this kind.

Schools Midlands (Bibles)

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Education if he is aware that one in every eight grammar schools in the Midlands cannot give proper religious instruction because of a shortage of Bibles; what is the position in schools as a whole; and what steps he is taking to remedy this shortage.

Mr. Tomlinson: I have read statements in the Press to the effect indicated in the first part of the Question. They arose, I understand, from an interim report of an inquiry conducted by the University of Birmingham Institute of Education on the basis of information collected in 1948. I have no evidence of any present shortage of Bibles in the schools. The publishers assure me that they have large stocks of school Bibles and can meet any demand without delay.

Sir W. Smithers: Will the Minister take steps to see that the schools are adequately provided?

Mr. Tomlinson: I have already taken those steps.

Mr. G. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that the complete responsibility for the requisitioning of text-books rests with head teachers of schools, and that if there is any difficulty in connection with Bibles a great many of us would soon help to obtain them?

Training Colleges (Religious Instruction)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Education what religious or Biblical study is given or required of students in teachers' training colleges.

Mr. Tomlinson: I have laid down no requirements, but courses in religious or Biblical study are available in all training colleges, and these subjects may be offered as part of the final examination.

Sir W. Smithers: What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that students and teachers do not use their positions for the purpose of Communist propaganda? May I have an answer?

Trained Teachers (Employment)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Education how many trained teachers are now awaiting posts; and what are the circumstances that have caused this temporary unemployment.

Mr. Tomlinson: I have no information about the total number of teachers now awaiting posts, but I am aware that a number of men who have recently completed courses at emergency training colleges are in this position. This has happened mainly because relatively large numbers of men have been seeking em-

ployment at the same time in the same areas and because many of them find it difficult to move to areas where they are more urgently needed.

Mr. Sorensen: Can the Minister say how long it will be before these men are put into suitable positions, particularly in view of the fact that many of them are suffering great financial hardship. In those circumstances will he not only answer the first part of the Question, but indicate what will be done to meet the special needs until posts are secured?

Mr. Tomlinson: I do not think we should attempt to aggravate this problem. Of the 1,700 men who left the emergency colleges since last December, 225 were recently reported to me as being still without posts, but 125 of these men ended their courses only last week. Thus, it will be seen it is not a big problem, and I am doing what I can to meet it.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: How can there be unemployment among teachers since, as we know, there are upwards of 50 pupils both in primary and secondary school classes?

Mr. Tomlinson: I have explained on more than one occasion the difficulty that there is in finding places for people in their home towns. There is plenty of room for the teachers, but not in the places where all the teachers want to go.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the cause of this failure and the consequent hardships on the teachers is largely due to the failure of the Minister of Health to get on with a proper housing programme?

Mr. Tomlinson: No, I think that is a travesty of the situation.

Mr. Sorensen: Has any special provision been made for these men, some of whom are married and are suffering great hardship, which will continue until they find jobs? In the circumstances, I give notice that I will raise this matter again at the earliest possible opportunity.

Young Children (Training)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Education if he will give an assurance that the present instructions from officials of his Department to those in charge of small children's homes throughout the


country, to the effect that the children should not be taught to say "Please" and "Thank you," will be rescinded.

Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Minister of Education why the principal of a school, of whose name he has been informed, was instructed to cease to teach the children to say "Please" and "Thank you"; and if he will reverse these instructions.

Mr. Tomlinson: It is not part of the duties of His Majesty's inspector to instruct, but to observe, discuss and sometimes to advise. We all like children to say "Please" and "Thank you." But experience in good normal homes, on which we should all wish to base our practice, suggests that individual and friendly training is more effective and more appropriate with very young children than anything in the nature of drill or routine.

Mr. De la Bère: Will the Minister please make sure that every encouragement is given to ensure that the children are trained in both courtesy and kindness? Does he realise that the one aim of my life is to spread a little ray of sunshine?

Mr. Blackburn: Does my right hon. Friend consider that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. De la Bère), is an arbiter of good and bad behaviour, and is he also aware that evidently there must have been a great lapse in his Department in the past, because it has undoubtedly failed to educate most hon. Members opposite?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Can I please ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his very long answer, which, I must confess, to some of us seemed almost incomprehensible, meant that these instructions were or were not given by an official of his Department?

Mr. Tomlinson: No instructions were given, but advice was offered by the inspector concerned. For the benefit of the House I should like to say that I have gone to a lot of trouble to find out exactly what happened and I have full confidence in the inspector. Might I also point out that these children, about whom such a song and dance is being made, were three years and three months old.

Mr. Cocks: Could the expressions "Please" and "Thank you" be used by Members of Parliament at Question Time?

Sir J. Lucas: Is not the leaving out of any mention of the word "obedience" or manners or sense of duty in the curriculum of school children having a most disastrous effect at the present time?

Mr. Tomlinson: I would point out that this was a school in the nature of a nursery. If children have been waiting four hours between one meal and another, and somebody suggests that the only basis upon which they will be allowed to obtain their dinner is if they say "Thank you"—[HON. MEMBERS "Why not?"] I am telling hon. Members why not. There are far better methods of teaching a child to say "Thank you" than by insisting that it should say it before it gets its dinner.

Mr. De la Bère: Thank you very much.

Empire Day Celebrations

Mr. Braine: asked the Minister of Education how many county and county borough education authorities, other than Middlesex County Council, gave schoolchildren a holiday to celebrate Empire Day.

Mr. Tomlinson: Without making special inquiries I could not say. I have no doubt, however, that Empire Day was generally marked either by a holiday or in some other suitable way.

Mr. Braine: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some education authorities do not recognise Empire Day in this fashion, and does he not think that the day is of sufficient importance to warrant a holiday for all children in the land? Is there any better way of fixing the importance and significance of the Empire in the minds of young people than by celebrating Empire Day?

Hon. Members: Commonwealth Day.

Mr. Tomlinson: There are differences of opinion as to whether a holiday is the best method of marking Empire Day. I am quite certain that it was recognised.

Teachers' Salaries (London Allowance)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Education whether the appropriate sub-committee of the Burnham Committee has yet reported to him on the proposed extension of the London allowance to districts in the London area in which this is at present not paid.

Mr. Tomlinson: As I have already stated, negotiations in regard to salary scales for teachers are expected to open in the near future. I have no doubt that the question of the London area allowance will be brought under review during these negotiations.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what has happened to consideration of this matter by the appropriate sub-committee, about which he informed the House a year ago?

Mr. Tomlinson: There is no appropriate sub-committee. It is not being considered by a sub-committee but by the Burnham Committee.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why he told the House, a little more than a year ago, that it was being considered by a subcommittee?

Mr. Tomlinson: I did not tell the House it was; I said it would be considered by this Committee.

University Entrance Requirements

Mr. Hollis: asked the Minister of Education what degree of agreement has been reached between the educational authorities and the universities on the qualifications required in the new public examination, as a condition for university entrance.

Mr. Tomlinson: University entrance requirements in terms of the General Certificate of Education are entirely a matter for the universities' decision. I understand that the universities of England and Wales have reached general agreement regarding minimum entrance requirements and the inter-availability of these.

Mr. Hollis: Does this mean the provincial universities, or does it include Oxford and Cambridge?

Mr. Tomlinson: It includes Oxford and Cambridge, except that these two universities, as the hon. Member knows, require qualifications additional to those required by other universities.

Mr. Hollis: What are the additional qualifications?

Mr. Tomlinson: A knowledge of either Latin or Greek.

Technical Colleges

Mr. Blackburn: asked the Minister of Education what steps he is taking to expedite the extension of existing technical colleges and the creation of new technical colleges in Birmingham and throughout the country.

Mr. Tomlinson: Local education authorities are well aware of the need to improve the accommodation of technical colleges, and I am doing everything I can to help them. Last year projects estimated to cost £5,700,000 were started and further projects to the value of £10 million are in various preparatory stages. The Birmingham authority have begun work on two branch technical colleges, each estimated to cost a quarter of a million pounds, and are about to begin the first instalment estimated at three-quarters of a million pounds of a new central technical college.

Mr. Blackburn: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on the very fine work that has been done, may I ask him whether he is, nevertheless, aware that today trade follows technicians rather than the Flag, and that it is of vital importance to redouble output if we can?

Mr. Tomlinson: That is the reason for the encouragement that has been given to the local authorities.

U.N.E.S.C.O. Conference, Florence

Mr. Eric Fletcher: asked the Minister of Education what are the principal objects of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation's Conference at Florence.

Mr. Tomlinson: This is the Fifth Session of the General Conference of U.N.E.S.C.O. Its principal object is to determine the policies and the main lines of work of the Organisation with particular reference to the budget and the programme of work for the coming year.

Mr. Fletcher: Are arrangements made for making known the activities of U.N.E.S.C.O in the schools?

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, Sir. We try to get as much factual information as is possible to the authorities so that it may be included, wherever possible, in the school curriculum.

Burderope Park Training College

Mr. Hollis: asked the Minister of Education whether he is aware that instructions have been given to the staff at Burderope Park Training College, near Swindon, to vacate the premises by 31st August; whether he will state for what new purposes the premises will be used; and what members of the staff will be reemployed.

Mr. Tomlinson: The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes," but the staff have also been informed that requests to continue in occupation of quarters for a short time in cases of real need will be considered so far as possible. After the closure of the training college, the premises are not to be used for any other purpose within the sphere of my Department.

Oral Answers to Questions — B.B.C. (EMPIRE DAY COMMEMORATION)

Sir Wavell Wakefield: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what steps his Department take to collaborate with the British Broadcasting Corporation in suitable activities to commemorate Empire Day.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Gordon-Walker): The B.B.C. has complete independence in the planning and arrangement of its programmes. My Department is always very ready to co-operate in any activities which are designed to improve knowledge and understanding of the Commonwealth.

Sir W. Wakefield: Does not the right hon. Gentleman's Department take steps to collaborate with the B.B.C., while recognising the B.B.C.'s independence in this matter, and to suggest various ways in which Empire Day may be commemorated not only in this country but throughout the Empire?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: We are always ready to collaborate, but the responsibility must be that of the B.B.C. It is very important that the B.B.C. should not become a Government organ in these matters.

Sir W. Wakefield: Does that prevent the Secretary of State from initiating action in desirable cases?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: Yes, it would stop me from initiating action in the sense that any consequences must flow from what I do, but it does not stop me from discussing these matters with the B.B.C.

Mr. Sorensen: Would it not be desirable for the Minister to take the initiative to celebrate Commonwealth Day, which would include India and Pakistan?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: That is another question, but I think that any celebrations of Empire Day do include India and Pakistan.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRALIA (BRITISH IMMIGRANTS)

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (1) whether his attention has been drawn to an official pronouncement by the Australian Minister for Immigration on 14th April, about the insufficiency of ships for the 100,000 immigrants wishing to sail from Britain this year; and what steps he is taking to deal with this difficulty.
(2) The total number of emigrants to Australia for whom passages can be provided; and what steps he is taking to increase shipping facilities.

Mr. Gordon-Walker: During 1950 the total anticipated lift for Australia in 11 special migrant ships is 34,500. The number of berths available in commercial ships brings the total up to approximately 76,600. I have seen the report of the statement by the Australian Minister for Immigration referred to by the hon. Member. It is the case that there is at the moment not sufficient United Kingdom shipping available to meet the full increased requirements of the Australian immigration programme. We are giving and shall continue to give all possible assistance in this matter but


at the present time all suitable British passenger shipping is fully employed.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Can the Minister say whether, in view of the statement made yesterday to the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), that there was unemployment in the shipyards and that it might be growing, this might not be a suitable opportunity of meeting this great need of Australia and Britain. Will he consider the use of aircraft carriers, because, otherwise, Australia is bound to take emigrants from elsewhere in Europe although anxious to take them from the United Kingdom?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: A quite elaborate reconditioning of ships has taken place, as the hon. Gentleman doubtless knows. Six ships on this run have undergone major alterations and there is one now—the "New Australia"—which is undergoing major alterations. The question of placing orders is a matter for the Australian Government and not for His Majesty's Government.

Major Guy Lloyd: Could not the Government have shown unusual foresight by using the "Aquitania" for this purpose, at any rate for a short time, instead of allowing her to be broken up?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: We have discussed with the Australian Government the use of a great number of various ships, and we have come to agreement on the ships which it pays to use on this run. We have given very great and urgent aid to increasing the number of berths available by converting ships and diverting ships. I might add that the number of berths is 4,000 down, because the Australian Government very generously released the "Georgic" for six months to earn dollars on the North Atlantic run. The number would otherwise have been 4,000 more.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Has the Minister discussed with the Australian Government the possibility of flying emigrants to Australia, which would help both countries to establish a merchant fleet of the air?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: I do not think that matter has been discussed between the two Governments. It would be a very expensive operation.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMONWEALTH TRADE (MEETINGS)

Mr. Russell: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations when he proposes to call an Empire Economic Conference to plan Empire trade and Imperial preferences in the light of post-war conditions.

Mr. Gordon-Walker: We have already had three meetings with other Commonwealth representatives since the war to discuss matters of mutual interest connected with Commonwealth trade, including Imperial Preference. We are in close and continual touch with other Commonwealth Governments on economic matters generally and the hon. Member may rest assured that we shall propose further such meetings as occasion requires.

Mr. Russell: Would the Minister not agree that the meetings he has just mentioned are not on the same scale as the Ottawa Conference of 1932, and does he not think it advisable to plan another such Conference to bring things up-to-date?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: I would like notice of that question. I am very doubtful whether such a conference would be necessary at the moment. The methods of consultation in these days are very different from what they were when the Ottawa Conference was called.

Mr. Blackburn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people understand the reason for it but, nevertheless, think it odd that we have a permanent organisation for European planning before we have a permanent organisation for Commonwealth and Empire economic planning? Will he bear that consideration in mind?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: Yes, of course I will, but my hon. Friend must also remember that the Commonwealth and Europe are very different places.

Mr. W. Robson-Brown: Is the Minister also aware that there is widespread commercial and public uneasiness about the effect of the Havana Agreement, Bretton Woods and Dumbarton Oaks, and a feeling that our Commonwealth relationships have been allowed to drift?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: I am not aware of that.

Mr. Turton: Will an opportunity be taken at the Sydney Conference to talk to the other Empire leaders to see whether an economic conference would be desirable, and whether we could not coordinate our Imperial policy?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: The Sydney Conference has come to an end.

Mr. Peter Smithers: Is the Minister aware that if a conference of this kind had been held the Government would not now be engaged in acrimonious negotiations with the West Indies?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: No, Sir. The West Indies would not be represented at such a conference.

Mr. Braine: Is it not a matter of increasing urgency that a full-scale conference should be held before the end of Marshall Aid?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's last remark, surely he is under a misapprehension. That reference might be made in the case of a Dominions conference, but at an Imperial conference the British Colonies have always been represented, either by spokesmen nominated by the governors concerned or a group of Colonies, or by His Majesty's Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] In case the last part of my remarks were not heard, and as this is very important, may I repeat that the British Colonies have always been represented, either by their own spokesmen, or by the British Government?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: I quite agree, that that is true in the case of conferences of the Ottawa type, but this Question is addressed to the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. As I am not responsible for the Colonies, I assumed that matters arising out of this Question referred to my Department.

Mr. Braine: On a point of order. May I have an answer to my supplementary question?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Film Industry

Lieut.-Colonel Hyde: asked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of remuneration paid to each

member of the National Film Finance Corporation; whether these appointments are whole time; and what qualifications the members possess for this work.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): With the exception of the managing director, all the members of the National Film Finance Corporation are employed on a part-time basis. Remuneration is as follows: Chairman, £2,500 p.a.; managing director, £4,000 p.a.; other members (3), £500 p.a. each.
The qualifications required by the Act are experience and shown capacity in matters relating to finance, industry, commerce, administration or law, qualities which are possessed by all the members of the Corporation in their respective spheres.

Mr. Maudling: asked the President of the Board of Trade what further information he has received since the publication of the Gater Report from British film producers on costs of production in the industry; and if he will make this information available to hon. Members.

Mr. H. Wilson: At my request the four main production organisations have recently supplied detailed information about both the costs and earnings of films made by them during the last two years. This information has been given to me in confidence.

Mr. Maudling: In view of the great importance of this information for a proper assessment of the difficulties of the film industry, can the Minister give some further information to the House in advance of any further discussions on the industry's problems?

Mr. Wilson: I will consider what can be done, but I have given the assurance that there will be no figures given relating to individual companies.

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement with regard to his talks with Mr. Eric Johnston for a renewal of the Anglo-American Film Agreement.

Mr. H. Wilson: The talks are still proceeding, and it is not possible to make a statement at present.

Mr. Fletcher: Can my right hon. Friend say whether something will be done during these negotiations to en-


courage a wider distribution in America of British-made films?

Mr. Wilson: I am sure it is the desire of all Members that we should get a wider distribution of British-made films, but these negotiations are being conducted by American producing interests who, under the new arrangements in America, do not own cinemas.

Malaya and Hong Kong (Internees' Claims)

Mr. Braine: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many payments have so far been made in respect of claims for loss of personal effects submitted by civilians who went to Malaya and Hong Kong after 3rd September, 1939, and who subsequently fell into Japanese hands.

Mr. H. Wilson: Payments so far made to persons shown by our records to have been interned total 335 in the case of losses in Malaya, and 241 in the case of losses in Hong Kong. It is not possible to say how many of these persons went to the territories concerned before or after 3rd September, 1939.

Mr. Braine: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of people who put in claims for the period mentioned have not yet had them settled? Is he further aware that some four years have elapsed since the claims could be submitted, and does he not think the Government have been extremely dilatory in effecting settlement in cases where people have suffered hardship at the hands of the Japanese?

Mr. Wilson: No, Sir. There have been many difficulties in settling them. I can assure the hon. Member that the rate of settlement is now going on much more quickly. There is another Question on the Order Paper relating to the speed of settlement.

Overseas Trade Report

Mr. Enroll: asked the President of the Board of Trade why no clear and separate reference to the trade in petroleum products is made in his monthly Report on Overseas Trade.

Mr. H. Wilson: The Report on Overseas Trade is designed to give mainly a broad picture of our overseas trade. It is based

on the monthly Trade and Navigation Accounts to which the hon. Member should refer for details of trade in individual commodities.

Mr. Enroll: In view of the great importance of the British trade in petroleum products, cannot the right hon. Gentleman exercise his not inconsiderable statistical ability to secure a separate entry in these returns?

Mr. Wilson: I am surprised that the hon. Member does not exercise his statistical ability by looking up the Trade and Navigation Returns.

Mr. Erroll: I did exercise that ability and found it very difficult successfully to distinguish the figures for vegetable oils, fats and resin from petroleum products. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us how we can so distinguish them.

Mr. Wilson: I think that what the hon. Member is after is something that would not be dealt with even in the most detailed accounts in the Report on Overseas Trade. If he will inform me what he is concerned to get, I will see if it can be made available to him.

Sir Herbert Williams: If the information is already in the Trade and Navigation Returns, why do we produce another publication?

Steel Exports

Mr. Enroll: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the average total monthly steel export to all countries; and what percentage of that total is represented by exports to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and to Canada, respectively.

Mr. H. Wilson: I am not quite sure what the hon. Member would include in the term "steel." But if he has in mind "finished steel," that is, figures taken from Groups IIIC and IIIS of the Trade Returns after making the appropriate exclusions, then these exports averaged 174,000 tons in January to April, 1950, of which exports to Canada represented 3.9 per cent. and to the Soviet Union 0.008 per cent.

Captain Ryder: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how it was he told us on 1st May that Canada could not take all the steel he offered to her, whereas on 20th April he said we should have liked


to send more steel to Canada but the trouble was that the industry was not doing enough to meet our requirements here? Is that an example of his statistical ability?

Mr. Wilson: The statement on 20th April related to a period at the end of the war when we were not able to send all the steel we wanted because of our limited supplies. My statement in the Debate on Anglo-Canadian Trade related to what we were doing in the concluding months of 1949 and what we were in a position to do in 1950. The whole position is somewhat different compared with that of a year or two ago.

Timber Supplies

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the present method whereby timber merchants obtain releases from the 38,000 standards reserve; and what simplification he proposes in that method.

Mr. H. Wilson: Timber is released from this reserve only when a user has satisfied an area officer of Timber Control that he cannot meet his essential requirements, as authorised on his consumption licence, from stocks already in merchants' hands. The release is made through a merchant nominated by the user. I do not propose to make any alteration in this arrangement.

Mr. Powell: Does the Minister realise that under present arrangements it is sometimes necessary for a consumer to approach 50 or 60 separate merchants before he can satisfy the area officer? Will he therefore look at the matter again?

Mr. Wilson: No, Sir, I am not aware of any such arrangements, but if the hon. Member will submit cases I will have a look at them.

Major Lloyd: Will the right hon. Gentleman follow the example of his colleague, and begin to make some experiments in freedom in this matter?

Mr. Wilson: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the attempt I made to secure freedom in the case of the timber trade, where I had great difficulties with private traders who wanted to keep on rings and controls after I took off control.

Mr. Osborne: Will the right hon. Gentleman speed up the supply of timber? There are houses still uncompleted owing to lack of timber, while timber is stacked in reserves ready for use.

Mr. Wilson: If the hon. Member can give an indication of such cases, I will see that the timber is made available from these reserves for this purpose.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE

Summer Uniforms

Mr. Ian Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the introduction of lightweight uniforms of material, such as drill, for use by the police during the summer months.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): Following the comprehensive inquiry into police clothing by a committee of the Police Council, on which all ranks of the police service were represented, arrangements have been made to introduce an open-neck serge jacket, and I should wish to have fuller experience of this new type of clothing before considering further innovations. I feel some doubt whether the occasions in the average English summer calling for the use of special lightweight uniforms are sufficiently numerous to justify the very substantial expenditure which would be entailed.

Traffic Duties, Hyde Park Corner

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the frequent traffic hold-ups at Hyde Park Corner; and if he will arrange for a police officer to be avail able to direct traffic at the Royal Artillery Memorial at these times.

Mr. Ede: I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that three constables are employed on traffic duty at Hyde Park Corner from 8 a.m. to 12 midnight daily, and that one of these is posted at the Royal Artillery Memorial. The points are, therefore, normally covered during peak traffic hours, but the officers are naturally liable to be called away to accidents or other emergencies.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the Home Secretary aware that the policeman is positioned in the wrong place? If the right hon. Gentleman would drive round Hyde Park Corner in the early morning and at about five o'clock in the afternoon, he would find that there is no policeman directing traffic coming from Piccadilly or traffic coming up Grosvenor Place. Would he inquire into that matter?

Mr. Ede: I will draw the attention of the Commissioner to the information contained in that supplementary question.

Unattended Cars, Tothill Street

Sir H. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why two police constables were warning motorists with a view to summonses for obstruction in Tothill Street on the morning of 17th May.

Mr. Ede: The constables were on this duty because of the many complaints received by the Commissioner of obstruction by unattended cars in Tothill Street. Whenever possible, cases are dealt with by caution or warning, but where a case shows a complete disregard of the convenience of traffic it is the practice to apply for a summons.

Sir H. Williams: Why, then, did they neglect this street from about 17th January, when they caught me, until 17th May, when they did not?

Mr. Ede: I have no doubt they thought that, so big a fish having got into the net, the net had better be properly examined to see whether it would stand further strain.

Sir H. Williams: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that this is a complete waste of police manpower, and that this street is the same every day; that once every three months they catch a certain number of people and issue summonses, and then leave it completely alone?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. This is a street that I know fairly well, and I think it is one that calls for police supervision.

Mr. Mikardo: As my right hon. Friend knows the street fairly well, will he give some consideration to The Broadway, at the end of the street, which, as its name implies is a very wide street, where there

is room for cars to park tail on to the kerb and still leave plenty of room? As, once a quarter, as the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) has said, the police come along and "pinch" a few people who park there regularly every day, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in this part of Westminster, which is very busy, there are virtually no official parking places at all?

Mr. Ede: I am quite certain that the police do their very best in the difficult circumstances of this area to be fair to all people, and, at the same time, to keep the wheels moving.

Major Tufton Beamish: Is the Home Secretary aware that I was recently summoned and fined for parking my car in The Broadway within an inch of the pavement?

Mr. Ede: I do not know whether I am being asked to recommend an exercise of the Royal Prerogative.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH CITIZENSHIP

Major Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many cases he has withdrawn British citizenship from persons who acquired it by registration or naturalisation.

Mr. Ede: No persons have so far been deprived of citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies under the provisions of the British Nationality Act, 1948, which came into force on 1st January. 1949.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE (ENROLMENT ELIGIBILITY)

Captain John Crowder: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent ex-Service men in the Class Z Reserve and former members of the Home Guard are eligible for service in the Civil Defence Corps; and if he will make a statement explaining exactly who is allowed to enrol in this corps.

Mr. Ede: Male Class Z reservists aged 40 or over are eligible for service in all sections of the Civil Defence Corps; those between 30 and 40 are, with certain exceptions, eligible for service in the Rescue and Pioneer Sections; those below


the age of 30 are ineligible. There is no restriction on the enrolment of former members of the Home Guard. With regard to the last part of the Question, as a statement of the conditions of eligibility is long and complicated, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Captain Crowder: Would the Home Secretary consider sending the information he proposes to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT to local authorities, who are trying to get recruits?

Mr. Ede: Yes, I think that would be a good idea.

Following are the conditions of eligibility for enrolment in the Civil Defence Corps:

Age Limits

1. Subject to paragraphs 2 and 3 below, recruitment to the Civil Defence Corps is open to:

(a) men and women aged 30 and over;
(b) for the ambulance section only: women of 18 and over;
(c) men of 18 to 29 who have been declared unfit for H.M. Forces but who are sufficiently fit for service with the Corps.

Ineligible Categories

2. The following men and women are not eligible for enrolment whatever their age:—

Serving members of H.M. Forces.
Members of the Territorial Army, Auxiliary Forces or Volunteer Reserves of H.M. Forces.
Members of the Royal Observer Corps.
Members of the Merchant Navy.
Members of the Police Services.
Members of the Fire Services.
Members of the Medical, Nursing or Midwifery Professions.
Members of the National Hospital Service Reserve.
Members of the Ambulance Service (whole-time).
Regular Reservists in the organised Reserves.
Royal Navy or Royal Marine Officers on the Retired or Emergency Lists.
Retired Officers of the Royal Air Force unless they have the permission of the Air Ministry.
Forces Pensioners still liable to recall.

Class Z (or equivalent) Reservists

3. Men in Class Z (or equivalent) Reserves may be accepted for part-time service if they are aged 40 or over.

Men aged 30–39 may be accepted for part-time service in:—

(i) the Rescue Section;
(ii) the Pioneer Section (Decontamination, Debris Clearance, Disposal of the Dead and Demolition Sub-Sections only)

if they served in:—

(a) the Royal Air Force;
(b) the Army, in one of the following Arms or Corps:—

Royal Armoured Corps.
Household Cavalry.
Royal Artillery (other than men who were serving on the posted strength of an Anti-Aircraft or Searchlight Unit of the Royal Artillery at the time of, or prior to, their release).
Infantry and Foot Guards.
Royal Army Service Corps.
Royal Army Education Corps.
Royal Pioneer Corps.

(c) the Royal Navy otherwise than in one of the following capacities:

Chief Rigger, Rigger, Rigger's Mate.
Petty Officer, Leading Seaman, Able Seaman (Harbour Defence Operator).
Chief Petty Officer, Petty Officer, Leading Seaman, Able Seaman (Controlled Mining).
Petty Officer Wireman, Leading Wire-man, Wireman (Controlled Mining).
Chief Petty Officer Coder, Petty Officer Coder, Leading Coder, Coder.
Electrical Artificers (all classes).
Petty Officer Wireman, Leading Wire-man (L).
Chief Petty Officer Air Fitter, Petty Officer Air Fitter, Leading Air Fitter, Air Fitter (L).
Chief Petty Officer Air Mechanic, Petty Officer Air Mechanic, Leading Air Mechanic, Air Mechanic (L).
Signalman, Ordinary Signalman.
Telegraphist, Ordinary Telegraphist.
Chief Petty Officer Radio Mechanic, Petty Officer Radio Mechanic, Leading Radio Mechanic, Radio Mechanic.

4. The restrictions on the recruitment of Class Z (or equivalent) Reservists do not apply to women.

5. The liability of Class Z (or equivalent) Reservists to return to the Colours for full-time service, if called upon, over-rides any part-time obligations which they undertake in the Civil Defence Corps.

Oral Answers to Questions — TAXICAB FARES, LONDON (INCREASE)

Sir W. Wakefield: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is now in a position to give his decision on the application made to him for a revision of taxicab fares in the London area.

Mr. Ede: I have today made an Order authorising an increase of 33⅓ per cent. in the fare for hiring a taxicab in the Metropolitan Police District. The Order will come into operation on 1st June, and will supersede the recent interim increase of 3d. per hiring. Until such time as the meters can conveniently be altered, the


revised charges will be set out in a prescribed notice to be prominently and legibly displayed in the cab. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation of the valuable report which I received from Sir Alan Rae Smith.

Sir W. Wakefield: Can the Home Secretary say how long it will be before all the meters are able to be altered?

Mr. Ede: That will take a very considerable time, because the alteration involves moving from four adjustments in the pence column to get into the shillings column, to three alterations in the pence column. That will take a very substantial time.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: In view of this increase in the Metropolis, will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to coordinate fares in the Provinces, as there is a great discrepancy?

Mr. Ede: The various local authorities in the Provinces have responsibility there. I shall be quite willing to do what I can to help them, but I have no personal responsibility in the matter.

Mr. Gibson: Will my right hon. Friend make sure that the notice to be exhibited in the cab is large enough for passengers to read without causing difficulty to the taxi driver?

Mr. Ede: Yes, Sir. I have a copy of it here. It is 11 inches long and 4½ inches wide, and all the figures are quite legible; they cover everything up to six miles, beyond which, of course, separate arrangements have to be made.

Oral Answers to Questions — STREET TRADERS, LONDON

Sir W. Wakefield: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give details of the penalties inflicted in the case of all convictions of street traders during the past six months for infringement of price control Acts and Regulations in Oxford Street, London

Mr. Ede: I understand that there has been one such case, in which a fine of £2 was imposed.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Will the Home Secretary consult with his colleague the President of the Board of Trade to see whether something cannot be done to stop the nylon "spivs" in Oxford Street, who break every regulation with complete impunity?

Mr. Ede: I will consult with my right hon. Friend.

Sir W. Wakefield: Is the Home Secretary aware that, apart from breaking trade regulations, they are also causing a lot of obstruction in that busy street; and might not policemen be used to prosecute them and to keep the way clear instead of watching cars in other places?

Mr. Ede: No, I am not going to advise the police to take any action on a class basis.

Oral Answers to Questions — FISHING INDUSTRY

Miss Irene Ward: asked the Prime Minister whether he can now make a statement on the future policy for the fishing industry arising out of discussions which have been proceeding between the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Minister of Food and the Secretary of State for Scotland.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I have been asked to reply. The examination of this matter is proceeding, but it has not yet been completed.

Miss Ward: Is this prolonged delay due to the fact that the expressed desires of the fishing industry are in conflict with Government policy; and could the right hon. Gentleman say why the Government do not put into operation in the fishing industry their policy of full employment?

Mr. Morrison: That is rather a long and involved question, based upon wrong assumptions.

Commander Galbraith: Does the right hon. Gentleman fully appreciate the seriousness of the situation? Does he realise that large sections of the fishing industry are presently faced with nothing short of disaster, and, in those circumstances, would he not make arrangements to allow a full Debate of this subject immediately the House reassembles?

Mr. Morrison: The Government certainly appreciate the situation. I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that that is so. We are taking all these important factors into account, and will arrive at a conclusion as soon as we can.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that hon. Members on this side of the House are most appreciative of the recent reception of certain proposals by the Minister and other Ministers concerned, and of their promise to consider the representations that have been made?

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the organisation of inshore fishermen, only the other day, sent messages to Members of Parliament and to the Government pointing out in detail their troubles, and announcing that unless drastic and immediate action were taken, great disaster would overcome that important industry?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRIES (ADMINISTRATIVE ECONOMY)

Wing-Commander Hulbert: asked the Prime Minister whether, as a measure of economy he will consider abolishing the Ministry of Town and Country Planning and transferring existing duties to appropriate Departments.

Mr. H. Morrison: I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave on 27th April on the general question of redistribution of functions between Government Departments. To this he has nothing to add, except that the reduction in the number of Departments does not necessarily lead to economies.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: As the House may anticipate the same kind of offer to Questions Nos. 47 and 48, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the purpose of these Questions is to give him an opportunity of saying whether the Government are in favour of administrative economy or not?

Mr. Morrison: I think the whole House knows that the Government are in favour of administrative economy, but I am bound to point out that, these being about the only proposals from the Opposition for economy, they are a long, long

way off fulfilling the promises they made to taxpayers at the election.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: asked the Prime Minister if he will give an estimate of the financial saving which would be effected if, for administrative purposes, the Ministries of Pensions and National Insurance were amalgamated.

Mr. H. Morrison: I have been asked to reply. It is impossible to make a precise estimate of the effect of amalgamating the two Departments mentioned. But my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is satisfied that any saving could not be substantial.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what the word "substantial" means?

Mr. Morrison: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman has an adequate degree of intelligence to understand the word as well as I can.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: asked the Prime Minister if he will consider creating an air division of the Ministry of Transport to take over the duties of the Ministry of Civil Aviation; and if he will give an estimate of the saving that would result.

Mr. H. Morrison: I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) on 4th May. The saving would not be large, but cannot be precisely estimated.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHILDREN'S HOMES (INSPECTION)

Mr. Da la Bère: asked the Prime Minister whether he will arrange in the inspection of small children's homes throughout the country, for steps to be taken to prevent overlapping by officials from the various Ministries on visits of inspection, and for one official to visit these smaller homes instead of separate officials from the Ministries of Health, Education and the Home Department.

Mr. H. Morrison: I have been asked to reply. The ordinary inspection of children's homes is carried out by Home Office inspectors, and as a rule only one inspector visits the home. Visits to residential nurseries which apply for approval as training centres for nursery nurses have


hitherto been made by inspectors of the Home Office and the Ministries of Health and Education, since all three Departments are concerned with the training of these nurses. In future, such visits will normally be made by not more than two inspectors.

Mr. De la Bère: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his answer, which was, however, not quite satisfactory? May I ask if he will take further steps to ensure that only the bare minimum of inspections take place in these homes?

Mr. Morrison: I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that the point of his question is being actively watched in the Departments concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — PARLIAMENTARY PRIVATE SECRETARIES

Sir H. Williams: asked the Prime Minister how many Ministers in the House of Commons have appointed Parliamentary Private Secretaries.

Mr. H. Morrison: I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister thinks that about 20 or 25 such appointments have been made in this Parliament, but he is not prepared to make a categorical statement, as such appointments are matters for arrangement between individual Ministers and hon. Members whom they may ask to fill these posts.

Sir H. Williams: Does that mean that approximately 100 Members of the party opposite are now in the official bag and are debarred from differing from the Government in their views?

Mr. Morrison: That is a most offensive way of referring to anybody, even to Ministers of the Crown apart from Parliamentary Private Secretaries. This is a very modest number, much fewer than the number which existed in the Government of which I had the honour to be a member under the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition during the war.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that prior to the advent of the Socialist Government, Parliamentary Private Secretaries were most discreet and did not heckle their chief's colleagues?

Mr. Chetwynd: Is it not a fact that Parliamentary Private Secretaries are quite capable of looking after their own business?

Oral Answers to Questions — FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will give an approximate date for the visit of the Festival ship "Campania" to Manchester and other north-western ports next year.

Mr. H. Morrison: The Festival ship "Campania" will not be visiting Manchester or any other north-western port in England. But it has been arranged with the local authority that the land travelling exhibition shall visit Manchester. The provisional dates for this visit are 4th May to 27th May. The land travelling exhibition will be no less attractive than the sea-borne one.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Surely the ship ought to visit such great ports as Liverpool and Manchester. Would the right hon. Gentleman say why that is not to be done in this case?

Mr. Morrison: The answer is that the ship cannot go everywhere and that those ports are to get the land-borne exhibition, which will be just as good as the exhibition on the ship. We are trying to distribute these favours all over the country. Manchester will have a very good show, and so will Liverpool.

Mr. Thomton-Kemsley: Arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the Government are trying to distribute favours fairly, may I ask whether, by any chance, there is any connection between the fact that the only two ports which this ship will visit in Scotland are those represented in this House by Ministers of the Crown?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman is out-of-date. That bright but improper idea was invented by the right hon. Lady the Member for Manchester, Moss Side (Miss Horsbrugh). It is a very naughty suggestion.

Mr. Hector Hughes: May I ask what we are to understand by the extremely vague term "north-west," and whether it means that north-west of this island, the north-west of England or the north-west of Scotland?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Attested Herds

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he is taking to encourage the attestation of beef herds.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown): My right hon. Friend hopes to introduce on 1st October a revised tuberculosis (attested herds) scheme and to include in it provision for bonus payments to encourage the attestation of beef and other herds.

Statutory Instruments

Mr. Boyd Carpenter: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments has reported to this House on the grounds that the form and purport of Statutory Instruments 435, 436 and 437, made by him and other Ministers on 23rd March, 1950, call for elucidation; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. George Brown: My right hon. Friend considers that the form and purport of these Statutory Instruments have been sufficiently elucidated by the memorandum from his Department which the Select Committee have printed as an appendix to their Report, and he is not proposing to take any further action.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the Minister aware that the Select Committee reported these Orders as requiring elucidation? May I ask, after reading the memorandum to which the hon. Gentleman referred and in view of the fact that a Select Committee of this House indicated that these Orders are difficult to understand, whether it is fair to the general public that these Orders should be left in this incomprehensible form?

Mr. Brown: In the light of what is said in the appendix, I think it is clear that the details of this Order will not fall upon the general public or individual producers. If the hon. Gentleman reads the appendix he will see that that is so.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Are not these Orders part of the law of the land, and is it not a criminal offence if they are transgressed? In those circumstances is it any defence to say that the Department understands what they mean?

Mr. Brown: It is quite clear, as the hon. Gentleman will see, having read them, that the Orders merely set out to show the calculation of the average minimum price. The actual prices which producers get are set out in precise forms of shillings and pence. Therefore these Orders, which we are required by the Act to lay, deal with the almost hypothetical but necessary basis of the average weighted price. I believe that they are quite clear and that if the hon. Gentleman will read the memorandum, he will find that it makes the matter clear.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Having read the Orders and the memorandum may I ask whether it is not a general principle that an Order which is incomprehensible to the ordinary citizen is a bad Order and bad law?

Mr. Brown: With great respect, the Orders are not incomprehensible. I doubt very much whether the hon. Gentleman has even looked at them.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Is it not a fact——

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: rose——

Mr. Speaker: I called the hon. Member for Islington East (Mr. E. Fletcher).

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am a little uncertain, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that what I am going to raise is a point of order. I said that I had read the Orders and the Minister directly says that I have not. What redress have I?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. I called the hon. Member for Islington East. No doubt the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) will get his turn in due course.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Is it not a fact that the Orders are merely a piece of machinery, and that the only person whom they bind in any way is the Minister?

Mr. Brown: That is a fact. I tried to make it clear that, as far as the individual is concerned, he is covered by the actual prices, which nobody will suggest are unfair or difficult. These Orders are the machine by which we establish the way in which the minima are fixed in advance.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does that mean that the Parliamentary Secretary is suggesting that it does not matter whether


anybody else understands these Orders or not? How are the general public, and this House, to make sure that the Minister is complying with them if they are incomprehensible?

Mr. Brown: If the hon. Member will read paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 he will find that they are all spelled out for him in words of one syllable.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is the hon. Gentleman implying that the comments of the Select Committee should have no weight whatever attached to them? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Surely it is making the procedure of this Select Committee derisory if their comments have no attention paid to them? Will the hon. Gentleman say whether he thinks that is right?

Mr. Brown: Attention has been paid to them. The matter has been considered. There is no way of making this formula clearer and less complicated. We have set out examples to show how the formula will work, and my right hon. Friend sees nothing further that he can do in the matter.

Mr. Nicholson: Does not the Minister think——

Sir H. Williams: On a point of order. In view of the long time taken by the Department in supplying the memorandum to the Select Committee, are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that the Report of the Select Committee reached this House after the time for praying against the Order had elapsed?

Mr. Nicholson: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the reason why the Report of the Select Committee reached the House later was that when a Report is made, an explanation has to be called for from the Ministry?

Mr. E. Fletcher: On a point of order. Is it in order for a member of a Select Committee to give evidence to the House as to the reasons why a Select Committee made a Report to the House?

Mr. Nicholson: Further to that point of order——

Mr. E. Fletcher: May I have your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, as to whether it is in order at Question Time for the Chairman or any members of the Select Com-

mittee on Statutory Instruments to purport to give explanations to the House as to the reasons why the Select Committee acted in a particular instance?

Mr. Hector Hughes: Further to that point of order. Is it not a fact that this very question was raised in the last Parliament and that your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, was that it was inadvisable for any member of that Committee to ask questions or to give evidence in the House about what took place on the Committee?

Mr. Nicholson: Is it not in order, Sir, to describe to the House in general terms the procedure of a Select Committee? You are no doubt aware, Mr. Speaker, that there are often difficulties over the procedure of this Select Committee because explanations have to be demanded from the Department in question before reports are made to the House and a certain time has to elapse in those cases.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think it is correct to disclose what happens in a Select Committee like this. General principles, yes; but to disclose what happens in a confidential committee seems to be wrong. I think that was the Ruling I gave before and that had better remain the Ruling now.

Mr. Nicholson: I was giving the House the general procedure of the Select Committee, Sir, and indicating the handicap under which it is bound to labour.

Mr. Speaker: If it is procedure in general and does not disclose opinions and Debates in Committee, then I agree with it, but I do not think one ought to disclose individual actions on a Select Committee for which it has not reported here.

Mr. Nicholson: With great respect, Sir, I did not intend to do that.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEW COMMONS CHAMBER (OPENING DATE)

Earl Winterton: (by Private Notice) asked the Lord President of the Council if he has any statement to make about the opening of the new Chamber of the House of Commons.

Mr. H. Morrison: I am glad to be able to tell the House that the new Chamber


will be ready for occupation on 23rd October. It is proposed to meet there for the first time on Thursday, 26th October, and His Majesty The King has graciously signified to Mr. Speaker that he will be pleased to receive Addresses from both Houses on that date. The arrangements have been under consideration by an informal Committee of representatives of both Houses over which Mr. Speaker has presided, and the full details will be made known in good time. I may, however, say now that Mr. Speaker will be sending invitations to the Speakers or other presiding officers of the lower Houses of the Legislatures of Commonwealth countries, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, and of Colonial Legislatures with unofficial majorities.
I should like on behalf of the House to acknowledge our indebtedness to Mr. Speaker for presiding over the informal Committee and for the close personal interest which he is taking in the arrangements.

Earl Winterton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all of us who were Members of that conference would like to be associated with the tribute which the Lord President has paid to you, Mr. Speaker, for presiding over those very happy and harmonious proceedings?

Oral Answers to Questions — MEMBER FOR BELFAST, WEST (SELECT COMMITTEE'S REPORT)

Mr. Churchill: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister what action he proposes to take upon the Special Report of the Select Committee on the Election of a Member, a Clergyman of the Church of Ireland—the Member for Belfast, West (Rev. J. G. MacManaway).

Mr. H. Morrison: I have been asked to reply. The Government have only just received the Report from the Select Committee and we have not yet seen the memoranda and evidence. We shall now study the matter, and I hope it will be possible to make a statement shortly after Whitsun.

Mr. Churchill: But may I draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that three months have passed since the General Election and that a

constituency with 80,000 voters has been disfranchised during the whole of that period? How do the Government propose to abridge this period of delay? Are they not now presented with a unanimous Report by the Select Committee advising legislation to remove the evil? Are they not also in possession of the legal opinion of the Attorney-General, supported by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) and other high legal authorities, that there is no case which would sustain a common informer? Are we to continue to keep 80,000 electors without any right to take part in this Parliament?

Mr. Morrison: My right hon. and learned Friend tells me that the interpretation of his opinion stated by the Leader of the Opposition is not accurate. Of course, the evidence was given by my right hon. and learned Friend to the Select Committee, not to the Government. Quite properly, he gave it to the Select Committee. Nor can we be blamed for the three months' delay. We can only deal with the matter once we get the Report from the Select Committee, and even now we have not received the memoranda and the evidence, which is no fault of the Select Committee and I am not complaining. If the hon. Member elected for the constituency had cared to take the risk of taking his seat he could have done so subject to such risks as he took. I cannot see that the Government can be blamed for the three months' delay.

Mr. Churchill: I certainly feel that no one would go out of his way to offer any tribute to the Government on account of any undue haste that they have shown in this matter. I had hoped to receive from the right hon. Gentleman today an assurance that the Government would legislate as rapidly as possible in the sense of the unanimous Report of the Committee. As that has not been forthcoming I wish to give notice that in my opinion, supported by a great mass of legal authority, it is the duty of the hon. Member to take the oath and take his seat at the earliest possible opportunity. That is the advice which I propose to tender to him. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise how much the procedure of Select Committees, which we imagined could deal with the matter promptly, has been, as it were,


clouded by the long delay and by all these devices of having it referred to the Privy Council and so on which, happily, the good sense of the Committee repudiated?

Mr. Morrison: If I may say so, the right hon. Gentleman is being very unreasonable. The Select Committee dealt with it when the Motion was referred to them; they have reported and we must consider their report. I am certainly not going to give any undertaking this afternoon. I do not want to prejudice the issue about legislation one way or the other. If the right hon. Gentleman seeks to persuade his hon. Friend to take his seat, it is for his hon. Friend to take his seat if he wishes and take any risks or otherwise involved. If, of course, the right hon. Gentleman is convinced that all respectacle and reputable legal opinion thinks he is entitled to take his seat, I am bound to say I do not know why he has not taken his seat before. However, I must be clear about this, that the hon. Gentleman is entitled to take what course he likes. It is his responsibility; but if he takes it and if certain unfortunate legal consequences follow, it must be understood that I do not undertake in that case on behalf of the Government to bring in indemnifying or other legislation.

Mr. Churchill: Have we not reason to be obliged—I put it in its interrogative form—to the Lord President of the Council for so plainly showing us his plan?

Sir Hugh O'Neill: Are we to take it from what the right hon. Gentleman has said, that in his opinion, as Leader of the House, it would not be in any way improper or discourteous to the House for the hon. Member for Belfast, West, to take his seat at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Morrison: I understand that the hon. Member for Belfast, West, is being advised by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition—or that the Leader of the Opposition may give him certain advice. I presume that the hon. Member for Belfast, West, even so, can still do what he likes about it——

Mr. Churchill: Certainly.

Mr. Morrison: —and it is for him to decide; it is not for me to judge what is proper or improper. The hon. Gentleman presumably is a responsible public person who, at an election, was elected, and it is for him to decide. This is a free country and I do not want to interfere with his free judgment.

Mr. Mitchison: Is the Lord President aware, on the question of disenfranchising a constituency, that the hon. Member for Belfast, West, also represents a Londonderry constituency in the Northern Irish Parliament, and that if and when he takes his seat here he will either have to oscillate with quite remarkable rapidity between this country and Northern Ireland or one or other of the constituencies will be disenfranchised?

Mr. Morrison: It would be quite improper on my part in any way to pronounce upon the affairs of the Northern Ireland Parliament. I have my hands full with this one.

Mr. Hector Hughes: In the event of legislation being introduced to declare that the reverend Gentleman in question is entitled to take his seat in this House, would this House not be put in the unenviable position of being asked to consider that very undesirable thing, retrospective legislation, without adequate justification?

Mr. Driberg: Will my right hon. Friend take great care to see that nothing is done which might even seem to call in question the validity of the Orders of the Church of Ireland which are, of course, essentially identical with those of the Church of England, whose ministers may not sit in this House?

Mr. Morrison: I will take note of what my hon. Friend says, but I bad better not go too far into theological considerations.

Professor Savory: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that by the Act of 1801, seeing that 12 months have already elapsed, no proceedings can be taken against the hon. Gentleman so far as the Parliament of Northern Ireland is concerned in which he has taken his seat?

Mr. Morrison: I will note that point too. There are some references to the Act of 1801 in the Report of the Select Committee. The hon. Gentleman, for


whom I have a high regard, will be better briefed in these matters than I am, and I do not think I had better get too far on that either.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if his replies mean that he is irrevocably opposed to retrospective legislation?

Mr. Morrison: I have not said anything of the kind. I have not even said there will not be any legislation. I have said that I cannot commit myself or the Government to legislation. It is for hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have been very eloquent about retrospective legislation in other respects, to find out why they are supporting it in this respect.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Eden: Can the Lord President of the Council inform us whether he has any statement to make on Business on our return after Whitsun?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): If I may make a reference to today's Business, may I say that we desire today to complete the following Bills and send them for consideration to another place: Foreign Compensation Bill, Highways (Provision of Cattle-Grids) Bill, Coal Mining (Subsidence) Bill, and then take the Second Reading of the Maintenance Orders Bill which has come from the Lords.
We had hoped to complete the Committee stage of the Coal Mining (Subsidence) Bill on Tuesday night and then take the Report and Third Reading today. This is an important Bill, and in view of the state of Business, if we do not complete it today I do not know when we shall be able to bring it on again. Therefore I venture to appeal to hon. Members in all quarters of the House to allow us to complete all stages of the Bill today.
The Business for the first week after the Whitsun Recess will be as follows:

TUESDAY, 13TH JUNE—Supply (16th Allotted Day); Committee. The subject for debate will be announced later.

WEDNESDAY, 14TH JUNE, AND THURSDAY, 15TH JUNE—We shall begin the Committee stage of the Finance Bill,

which stage the Government hope to complete in five days.

On Thursday, before resuming the Committee stage of the Finance Bill, we shall ask the House to take the Committee stage of the Ways and Means Resolutions relating to Tractors, etc., and Double Taxation, which are on the Order Paper.

FRIDAY, 16TH JUNE—Consideration of Private Members' Motions.

Mr. Eden: The right hon. Gentleman knows there have been some discussions through the usual channels with regard to the days allotted to the various further stages of the Finance Bill. I must admit that certain improvements have been made as the result of those discussions, but we still feel that the present proposals concentrate the days into rather a short period, which is not at all convenient to the Committee if we have late sittings, because the proceedings of the day before are often not available for discussion—printed, and so on. So I would enter something of a protest about that. I would also mention—I do not want to raise it now—that we may need an extra day. Perhaps it is not necessary to press that at the moment but see how we get on during discussions, but I do not want the Government to say, "You never warned us" when that moment comes.

Mr. Morrison: I appreciate the scrupulous honesty of the right hon. Gentleman. However, I would respectfully point out that it is a much shorter Finance Bill than it was last year, and there is an extra day for the Committee stage. Therefore I hope, that, with co-operation, we shall get through, but I note the reservation which the right hon. Gentleman has expressed.

Mr. Eden: I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will also bear in mind that because the Finance Bill is shorter it is not necessarily less controversial.

Mr. Morrison: Somebody said it was dull.

Mr. Ellis Smith: On Business, may I ask the acting Prime Minister, if he agrees that important ministerial statements should be made in the House where they can be subject to interrogation by the elected representatives of the people? And if so, will he bear in mind the constant growth of Press conferences, two of


which were held last week, where important statements were made, which in my view, should have been made in this House? In view of the fact that the Press conferences in their present form are a war-time growth, will he consider this matter in order to prevent it being repeated in the future?

Mr. Morrison: I do not dissent from the initial and fundamental principle expressed by my hon. Friend, but I thought, on the whole, that Ministers lived up to these things. It is true that sometimes announcements are made at Press conferences but I think, on the whole, that when they are so made, it is appropriate that they should, because, if every statement—especially about the economic and trading activities in which certain Departments are involved—were made in the House, there would be a lot of statements and the House would begin to get rather tired of them. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, with great respect, I have seen it happen. But I shall keep the point of my hon. Friend in mind, and I do not challenge his fundamental point. It is a matter for judgment on the merits of the case.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that I am not asking that statements in general should not be made outside. What I am asking is that we should get back to the pre-war method and that important statements, like the abolition of points and controls, and that kind of thing should be made in the House so that they may be immediately challeneged by the elected representatives of the people.

Mr. Morrison: But it has been quite customary during the war and since. After all, there was not a Ministry of Food before the war. It is quite customary for statements about adjustments in rationing and points to be made outside, and if all of them were made here we should get congestion. However, I shall take note of the point and I will keep it in mind.

Earl Winterton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of us have been pressing the point put by the hon. Gentleman upon Governments of all compositions—I pressed it both upon the National Government and the Conservative Government—and while hon. and

right hon. Gentlemen opposite and some of my right hon. Friends on this Front Bench have attempted in the past to defend their action, the attitude of the House has been entirely inimical to the point which has just been made by the right hon. Gentleman, that it is more convenient on many occasions to make the statement outside. Will he remember that this is the Commons House of Parliament?

Mr. Morrison: I certainly will. I am not likely to be allowed to forget it. I will say this about the noble Lord, that he has been very fair on the matter; he has not hesitated to express criticism of his own people as well as ours, and we always welcome it when hon. Gentlemen opposite do that.

FLOOD AND FIRE DAMAGE, CANADA (RELIEF MEASURES)

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Gordon-Walker): With permission. I should like to make a further statement about assistance for those who have suffered in the Manitoba floods.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House on 18th May, we informed the Canadian authorities of our eagerness to give any practical help in our power. Our High Commissioner reported that the resources at the disposal of the Canadian authorities were fully adequate to meet the immediate requirements of the flood crisis but that the people of Winnipeg and the surrounding districts would face a heavy task in putting their homes and farms in order after the floods. It is clearly in this direction that we can most speedily and effectively assist the victims of this great flood disaster.
We have, therefore, after consultation with the Canadian Government and the Government of Manitoba, arranged for a fully loaded aeroplane to leave for Winnipeg tomorrow morning. It will carry about eight tons of sheets and pillowcases, towels, curtain material, hospital and children's blankets, elastoplast dressings, and some toys for the younger children. Further shipments covering a wider range of goods will be made by sea when we have more detailed information of the aid that will be most useful.
I am sure that the House would wish some of these additional supplies to be


used to help as well those who have suffered in the recent disastrous fires in Quebec, at Rimouski and Cabano, in which large parts of the two towns were destroyed. We shall make every effort to give any further help which may prove to be needed, and to this end the Government have set aside a sum of £100,000—that is, the equivalent of about 300,000 Canadian dollars.
I should add that in order to help overcome exchange difficulties, my office will be prepared to use any sums of money that may be raised by public subscription for the purchase and shipment of additional supplies.

Mr. Eden: I am sure that the whole House will welcome and endorse these proposals—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] May I ask one or two supplementary points? As I understand from the government, in the event of its being found desirable to do so, they are perfectly ready to send a second aircraft with a second consignment without waiting for the sea shipment. My second question is this: at the end of his statement, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the readiness of the Government to use money subscribed by public subscription for the purchase and shipment of supplies. I presume that the right hon. Gentleman would not wish the money to be sent to his Department as that, I should imagine, would involve him in considerable correspondence. Have the Government any proposals in that respect, because the public write to many of us in this House saying that they want to send subscriptions, and some guidance would be very valuable?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: On the question of a second aircraft, we are, of course, in continuous touch with the Canadian authorities about what is of use to them and the speed with which it should go. If it is felt that a second aircraft loaded in this way would be desirable, we would, of course, give the matter urgent and very sympathetic consideration. I certainly do not want subscriptions to be sent to my office, because that is not what my office is designed to deal with. A number of funds have been started, I understand, in different parts of the country. It is very hard for me to answer this question, because the Government must not have anything to do with voluntary contribu-

tions of this sort, but it may be that after this statement, other funds will be organised. The purpose of my office is merely to overcome the exchange difficulties which exist in this particular case.

MALTA (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE)

The Minister of State for the Colonies (Mr. John Dugdale): Sir George Schuster has made certain recommendations to the Maltese Prime Minister regarding the financial and economic situation, and the Maltese Government have informed His Majesty's Government that they have accepted his advice and propose to implement it so far as this can be done locally. At the request of the Maltese Prime Minister, Sir George Schuster has acquainted His Majesty's Government with the results of his investigations so far, and the Maltese Government have sought, through him, an indication of the attitude of His Majesty's Government.
His Majesty's Government are now satisfied that Malta cannot, even with the most vigorous action, rely on being able over the next few years to provide out of their own resources all that will be re-required to meet essential expenditure and to sustain the standard of public services to which the Maltese Government are already committed. His Majesty's Government recognise further that, in view of the close ties binding Malta with the United Kingdom, Malta may legitimately look to His Majesty's Government for help towards recovering stability after the disturbances of war on grounds analogous to those which prompted the Marshall Plan.
His Majesty's Government are prepared to announce at this stage their willingness in principle to provide such assistance. The figure which Sir George Schuster recommends is £1½ million over the next five years and, subject to Parliamentary approval, His Majesty's Government would be prepared to contribute up to that amount. Assistance would have to be directed towards projects likely to strengthen the economic foundations of Malta or to make good arrears of necessary capital expenditure; it would not be appropriate for His Majesty's Government to commit themselves to subsidising, directly or indirectly, normal recurrent


expenditure or the creation of new social services.
In these circumstances it appears to His Majesty's Government that Colonial Development and Welfare funds would be the right source from which the money can be provided; but for this and other purposes it will be necessary to seek Parliamentary approval in due course for some increase in the sums made available by the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, 1945. It would moreover be necessary to reach agreement with the Maltese Government about suitable machinery for joint consultation with regard to the uses to which United Kingdom assistance would be put.

Mr. Eden: I think that there will be a general desire to do what we can, despite our own very heavy burden, to assist Malta, for the whole House is unlikely to forget the debt which we owe to the Maltese for their war efforts. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question? Sir George Schuster's report has been made to the Maltese Government and to the Prime Minister of Malta. Is it proposed that the report will be available before we discuss the matter? Is it possible to get the Maltese Government to agree to this? It would add to the interest of our own discussions.

Mr. Dugdale: The Prime Minister of Malta has informed me that it is intended to publish this report but that he cannot say the exact date of publication.

Mr. Thomas Reid: Would not this sum bring the total of grants of Malta since the end of the war to about £40 million, and can the Minister give an assurance based on Sir George Schuster's report that by the investment of this money in Malta the island can hope to become economically independent thereafter?

Mr. Dugdale: As regards the first part of the question, the total amount will be approximately £35 million. As regards the second part of the question, it can be said that as a result of Sir George Schuster's recommendation there would previously have been a Budget deficit of about £400,000 but that the Budget now being introduced in Malta, contemplates a surplus of approximately £100,000.

Mr. Gammans: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether this money can be used to help emigration schemes, which in the long run are the only thing which will help to put the economy of Malta straight?

Mr. Dugdale: The Maltese Government, like our own, are fully alive to the importance of this and, I am sure, will do everything possible to help emigration.

Mr. Rankin: It is not so long ago that we were sending German workers to Cyrenaica. Is it not possible to assist Malta by using her unemployed for that kind of work in North Africa?

Mr. Dugdale: That would not solve the problem of emigration unless they took their families with them.

Mr. Snow: Would it not be possible to draw the attention of the Italian Government to the economic situation in Malta and to ask them if they could make some contribution to restoring the economy of the island?

Mr. Dugdale: No, Sir, that is a matter between ourselves and the Government of Malta.

SCOTLAND (FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC COMMITTEE)

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNeil): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on Scottish affairs.
His Majesty's Government are aware of the widespread desire in Scotland for fuller information about the economic position of the country; and in recent years extensive statistics about Scottish industry and employment have been published in the annual White Papers on these subjects. Efforts to add to these statistics continue; and further information will be available when reports on the results of the census of production and the census of distribution are submitted.
There have also been many requests for the publication of information about the financial and economic relationships between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. Before the war estimates were published of the amount of revenue raised in Scotland, of the extent of Government expenditure on Scottish services and of the contribution made by


Scotland to "general" expenditure on such purposes as the Armed Forces, the foreign service, the National Debt and on such overseas commitments as for example, colonial development. These estimates were, however, based to a considerable extent on arbitrary assumptions as to the sources of revenue and the distribution of expenditure; and they were not accepted as giving an agreed picture of Scotland's position. It has not, therefore, been felt that the value of a similar return in present circumstances would justify the diversion of effort from essential work which would be involved in its preparation.
Interest in the subject, however, continues and is extensive in Scotland and it appears to the Government desirable that the first step should be taken of ascertaining impartially whether it is practicable for the information desired to be obtained in a reliable form. The economic and administrative structure of the United Kingdom is plainly very closely integrated; and the precise ascertainment of the relative contributions made by Scotland and other parts of the Kingdom to the public revenue, if possible at all, would involve the collection by Government Departments and by industrial, commercial and other undertakings of statistics not at present available.
Similarly, there is a considerable volume of Government expenditure which cannot directly be attributed to any particular area of the United Kingdom. To estimate the share of this expenditure which is met from Scottish revenue, or to which Scotland can appropriately be exepected to contribute, may not only be difficult, but may involve controversial assumptions. In these circumstances, I propose to appoint a strong and independent Committee to consider and advise on the practicability of making a reliable return of the revenue from, and Government expenditure in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom and the balances of revenue available for "general" expenditure.
I propose also to ask the Committee to consider and advise on the practicability of making a return of Scotland's share in the imports and exports, visible and invisible, of the United Kingdom; and of Scotland's economic balance sheet. These are matters in which considerable interest is being taken in Scotland, but upon which

precise information is not at present available.
I would add that in view of the interest which is at present being taken in the arrangements for the administration of Government business in Scotland, and of the lack of understanding of the extent so which the work of Government Departments is, in fact, carried on in Scotland, it is proposed to publish within the next few weeks, a booklet dealing comprehensively with these matters. I propose to circulate the Committee's terms of reference in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Churchill: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the statement he has just made, he has made a considerable, albeit only a partial, advance towards the policy which we on this side of the House declared at the General Election? On 29th November we stated, in the "Unionist Policy for the Effective Control in Scotland of Scottish Affairs":
We intend that a Royal Commission be appointed to review the whole situation as between Scotland and England in the light of modern development and to make recommendations.

Mr. Hector Hughes: On what date?

Mr. Churchill: That was 29th November; that date is quite easy to take in. Will not the right hon. Gentleman consider whether, while he is deferring to our wishes to a certain extent, he will not go the whole way and, instead of appointing what he calls a strong and independent Committee, appoint a Royal Commission, which is what we have demanded? Perhaps he has received some legal advice. At any rate, will he say whether he will appoint a Royal Commission and then we should be able, on this side of the House, to congratulate ourselves on having at any rate secured this measure of consideration for a vital Scottish matter?

Mr. McNeil: I am, of course, grateful for the qualified support of the right hon. Gentleman, but I should think even his capacity for claiming political credit for all kinds of things is being strained a little when he suggests that his party alone has shown consideration for Scottish affairs. In fact, when the right hon. Gentleman was a member of a Government this did not seem to weigh very greatly with him. As to a Royal Commission, I am grateful for his advice, but


I have a sort of suspicion at the back of my mind that I recollect the right hon. Gentleman offering a Royal Commission as a method of delaying decision.

Mr. Churchill: No, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has no right to suggest that this is a method of delaying. He and his party have been forced into action by our pressure.

Mr. McNeil: I repeat, I am grateful—and I would be very silly if I were not grateful—for political advice from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, but he has been very measured and, may I say without presumption, properly measured, in his attitude towards Scottish affairs. I do not think there is any reason to be ungrateful for this precise and definite step which this Government have taken and which other Governments did not take.

Mr. Clement Davies: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to confer with the Leader of the House and ask whether this privilege which has been given to Scotland can be extended to Wales? Why should Scotland get all the privileges and my people be left out?

Mr. McNeil: I could not agree that this is a privilege, but discussion of any other part of the subject should perhaps be continued by the right hon. and learned Gentleman with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Mr. Churchill: The right hon. Gentleman did not tell us the terms of reference. Can he give us the terms of reference, and are we to take it that he has definitely decided to refuse a Royal Commission?

Mr. McNeil: The terms of reference I have here, but they are fairly lengthy. They are more precise upon the two subjects to which I have already drawn general attention. I propose to circulate the terms of reference. As to the Royal Commission, I should prefer to confine myself to the statement I have made.

Mr. McAllister: May I, on behalf of my Labour colleagues—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, I cannot speak for my Tory colleagues and I am glad of that. On behalf of my Labour colleagues may I thank the Secretary of State for Scotland for getting down to the problem so quickly—he has been Secretary of State

for only a few months—considerately and thoughtfully, and for quickly considering the recommendations made by colleagues on this side of the House and for giving an answer which, on the whole, is highly satisfactory? While the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition is very anxious——

Mr. Speaker: I do not like to interrupt speeches, but we are taking a long time before getting on to the business of the day

Mr. McAllister: I hesitate to make a speech and I know you, Sir, would rule me out of order if I did so, but the Leader of the Opposition did claim that this concession had been made as a result of pressure by his party and as a result of the decision of his party in November last year to press for such an inquiry. I would merely like to say that the Scottish Conference of the Labour Party made a decision two years earlier on exactly the same point, and that they have had continual consultations with the Government with a view to achieving this result. Is my right hon. Friend aware that when the right hon. Gentleman opposite was in Edinburgh last week he did not even spare ten words for the subject?

Mr. Churchill: What I said carried forward all I had said on the subject previously.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: With regard to this novel expedient of an inquiry into the possibility of an inquiry, will the right hon. Gentleman define three points? First, what will be the membership of the Committee or the general character of the membership of the Committee? Second, will their conclusions be made public? Third, how long does the right hon. Gentleman expect it will take to complete this inquiry?

Mr. McNeil: I cannot agree that it is an inquiry into the possibility of an inquiry. It is an inquiry to determine what should be the form of publication if that should be thought desirable. I should propose that the membership ought to comprise people of reputation who have a facility for finding their way about in Governmental accounts and in economic matters. As to publication, since I do not know what form the report will take, I should not like, at this stage,


to say that it will be published, but I would undertake immediately, on behalf of the Government, that the findings and conclusions of the Committee will be made public.

Mrs. Eirene White: As this Committee will have to do a great deal of complex work in regard to the income and expenditure of the United Kingdom, would my right hon. Friend agree that it should, at the same time, consider the position of Wales, as that also accounts for part of the United Kingdom expenditure?

Mr. McNeil: As the Leader of the House said earlier this afternoon, my hands are quite full.

Mr. W. G. Bennett: In view of the almost unanimous demand by the electorate in Scotland for the widest possible inquiry into the position, why will not the Secretary of State go the whole hog and give the fullest possible examples of the position as between the two countries?

Mr. McNeil: I have not the faintest idea of what the hon. Member is asking. This Committee will, in terms of finance and economic affairs, have the widest remit. Let us see that, before we jump to any conclusion.

Mr. Churchill: Is this to be merely a committee of officials, or what is its composition to be? Why will the right hon. Gentleman persist in refusing the plain demand which is made, and was made six months ago, before the election, for the setting up of a Royal Commission?

Mr. McNeil: If this Government were to submit to every one of the irresponsible demands made by the Opposition during the last election the country would be in chaos. As to the precise point, I am sorry if I created any suspicions. It is not proposed, and, of course, it would be quite improper, that the Committee should be comprised of officials. I said that it was to comprise people of reputation who had a facility for finding their way about in that type of subject. It would obviously be undesirable to appoint artists to the Committee, for example.

Mr. Churchill: I should like, if I might, to assure the right hon. Gentleman that part of my anxiety in this matter is due to my desire that the reputation which he acquired in a subordinate position at the

Foreign Office shall not be squandered now that he is the head of a Department.

Mr. McNeil: I am very grateful.

Mr. Rankin: To ensure that the Committee shall have the qualities which my right hon. Friend desires, and that it will be strong and independent, will my right hon. Friend assure us that it will not contain a minority of Scotsmen?

Mr. McNeil: Yes, I can very gladly give that undertaking to my hon. Friend. I might also take this opportunity of saying that I am indebted to my hon. Friend and his colleagues for the constructive and helpful memorandum which they offered to me.

Mr. Brendan Bracken: May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on completely reversing the statements made by his predecessor, who said it was quite impossible to separate Scottish and English finance? As the right hon. Gentleman has also referred to what he calls election promises, may I remind him that in 1945 his own party, in their "speakers' notes" circulated to Scottish Members, promised Home Rule for Scotland.

Mr. McNeil: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is being unwittingly ungenerous and inaccurate in respect of my right hon. Friend, who did not say that it was impossible. He said that they were very closely integrated, and that to do what was suggested would mean a diversification of essential and skilled labour and time which the country could not afford. As to the right hon. Gentleman's second point, if he had taken some other good advice from our "speakers' notes" in 1945 he would not be in the miserable mess in which he is now.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: While willing to accord to the Leader of the Opposition some credit for his wisdom in adopting, for the purposes of the Tory Conference, a resolution passed some years before, by the Scottish Labour Party I am confining myself to this question. May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he intends to publish this report and whether there is any sort of time limit in which it is expected the deliberations will be completed?

Mr. McNeil: I am sorry, but since I do not know what range this Committee will travel, I cannot give an indication of


how soon they will report. As to my hon. Friend's other point, I have indicated that I cheerfully undertake that the Government will publish at least the conclusions of the Committee.

Major Guy Lloyd: While the whole House will appreciate the motives of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in making this statement, may I ask if he would tell the House why it was that his predecessor and all his colleagues, including the right hon. Gentleman himself, repeatedly refused, throughout the General Election, to consider anything of the kind?

Mr. McNeil: The hon. and gallant Member should at least do me the honour of listening to replies from me when they are evoked by one of his right hon. leaders.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: Would it be correct to conclude from my right hon. Friend's statement that the proposals for the breaking up of the unified administration of the United Kingdom is a necessary and essential part of the furtherance of a united Europe?

Mr. McNeil: I do not think that my hon. Friend's first assumption is warranted, and his second, therefore, does not arise.

Mr. Iain MacLeod: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is still three of four matters of Unionist policy which have not yet been accepted by the benches opposite? Will he therefore accept on behalf of the Government—of course, at a cut rate—any surplus copies of our last election publication on Unionist policy for Scotland?

Mr. Grimond: When will the Secretary of State be able to announce the membership of this Committee? When does he hope they will start work?

Mr. McNeil: I should hope to be able to announce the composition of the Committee during the Whitsun Recess. I should hope to get them off the mark as quickly as possible.

Mr. John MacLeod: Would the right hon. Gentleman see that Scottish representation on this Committee is not overbalanced by the industrial area of Scotland, and that the territorial representation shall be the widest possible?

Mr. Hector Hughes: While congratulating the Secretary of State upon his determination to resist the attempts by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) to slow down consideration of this matter by referring it to a Royal Commission rather than to a strong and independent Committee, will he tell us when we shall learn the personnel, the terms of reference of the Committee and when it will commence work?

Following are the terms of reference:

To be a Committee to consider the practicability of making a return of

(i) the revenue from and Government expenditure in—

(a) Scotland; and
(b) the rest of the United King dom,
and the balances of revenue available 5 for general expenditure from Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom r respectively;
(ii) Scotland's share in the imports and exports, visible and invisible of the United Kingdom;
(iii) Scotland's imports from, exports to and balance of payments with other countries, including the rest of the United Kingdom;
with particular reference to—

(a) the information which can be obtained from existing records;
(b) the further information which would be required;
(c) the extent to which this information could be provided by the Government and by industrial, commercial and other interests and the amount of work involved in its provision;
(d) the nature of any assumptions which would have to be made and the extent to which those assumptions would affect the accuracy of the return; and
(e) the resultant value and reliability of any statistics so obtained.

ADJOURNMENT (WHITSUN)

House at its rising Tomorrow to adjourn till Tuesday, 13th June.—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

Orders of the Day — FOREIGN COMPENSATION [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the establishment of a Commission for the purpose of registering and determining claims to participate in compensation under agreements with foreign Governments and of distributing any compensation received under any such agreements, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the expenses of the Commission constituted under the said Act, including the remuneration and allowances of the members, officers and servants of the Commission;
(b) the payment into the Exchequer by the Commission of the amount of such of the said expenses as may be directed by Order in Council under the said Act."

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — FOREIGN COMPENSATION BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(DISTRIBUTION OF COMPENSATION UNDER YUGOSLAV AND CZECHOSLOVAK AGREEMENTS.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

4.22 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 3, line 11, at the end, to insert:
(3) Any Order in Council made under this section shall provide that all established claims for sums under five hundred pounds shall be paid in full as soon as possible and that a sum of five hundred pounds shall be paid as soon as possible in respect of every established claim in excess of that amount; and that all such payments shall be disregarded before providing for the distribution of any further payments.
I can explain quite shortly the object of this Amendment which I hope will commend itself to the Committee. It is not often one has the opportunity in this House of suggesting Amendments to Statutory Instruments; but the Foreign Office have very conveniently and I think

on this occasion appropriately, filed with the Bill the context of the two Orders in Council which it is proposed to bring into operation when the Bill has been passed into law. It is of course the detailed provisions that will be found in the draft orders that provide the machinery for the operation of this Bill.
As the proposals stand at the moment the sums which will be paid out of this fund will be paid out in accordance with the provisions of Article 4 (a) of the proposed Order in Council. In other words if one takes for example the agreement with Czechoslovakia, as matters stand at the moment the total sum of £8 million which will be paid over the period of the next four years from the Czechoslovakian Government is to be distributed among the claimants who establish their claims in accordance with Article 4 (a) of the draft order. That is to say, the amount will be distributed on a precise arithmetical basis, each claimant getting an exact fraction of the total distributable amounts.
I suggest that, in this case, that is not either the fairest or the most equitable way of dealing with this sum of £8 million. It does not necessarily follow that strict adherence to arithmetical theories produces the most desirable form of justice or equity. Among the claimants participating in this sum of £8 million there are a few large corporations, such as Imperial Chemical Industries, J. & P. Coats and others, all of whom it is known will put in claims for very large sums of money. In addition there will be a substantial number of small claims. I imagine it is under 1,000, because on Second Reading the learned Attorney-General estimated that the total claimants on both orders was about 1,800. Let us assume in the case of Czechoslovakia that it is approximately one half of that number. There would therefore be perhaps a thousand or less relatively small claimants, people in humble circumstances claiming relatively small sums.
The object of my Amendment is that instead of waiting perhaps 18 months or more before the precise sums for the large claimants are recognised and established, those who are able to establish small claims should be paid in full. I imagine that there will be a number of claims which are considerably less in total than


£500. I suggest that to keep those people waiting until all the claims have been ascertained and the amounts calculated would be imposing hardship on the small claimants and would not be conferring any corresponding benefit on the large corporations about whose claims there may well be—in fact in most cases there certainly will be—considerable argument, before the amounts of their claims are accepted.
My proposal, therefore, is that if anybody can establish a claim to participate in this fund to the extent of £500 or less, that claim should forthwith be paid in full. Other claimants about whose claims there may be delay and argument, should, as a matter of justice, be entitled to receive £500 on account of their claim. I hope that this proposal will commend itself to the Committee. I would urge the Committee to remember that one of the objects of this Bill is to provide compensation to be paid to those who have suffered loss of their property by these nationalisation decrees of Czechoslovakia. They include a large number of British subjects who are in difficult circumstances and for whom it would be a hardship to have to wait before payment is made to them.
4.30 p.m.
I hope that, on those grounds, my hon. Friend will not hesitate to accept this Amendment. I hope that this fund will not be administered in a dull, prosaic manner as if it were a company liquidation, and the company winding-up rules were necessarily to be strictly observed. This is a matter in which it is necessary to have regard to the realities of the situation. It is idle to pretend that the few hundred individual claimants for relatively small amounts are in precisely the same position as a few hundred large corporations claiming very large amounts.

Mr. William Teeling: The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) referred to there being only a few people in this case, but earlier in his statement he said that a large number of people were concerned. He referred to the £8 million from Czechoslovakia. I am more interested in Yugoslavia. There, although there is, I believe, only £4 million to be paid, the sum at present is only £400,000. If the Minister could give some idea of

the number of these small claims which are involved, it would be most helpful. The sum of £400,000 will not go a very long way when we take away the costs of the inquiries, and so on, and the possibility that we may not be paid any more for some time.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I hope that the Government will approach this Amendment certainly with sympathy but with some caution. I think we would all be favourably impressed with the notion that the administration of this scheme should not be rigid or too hidebound by rules, but should pay some regard to the humanities involved. I think that is what my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) had in mind. His view was that persons to whom a small amount, a small claim, made a very great difference should be dealt with in some priority to more powerful persons or corporations, to whom the amount involved was of less significance.
No one would contend that that was not the right way to approach these matters. All the same, I doubt very much whether this Amendment would have that effect. It presumes that the man who has a small claim is a poor man, and that the man who has a large claim is a rich one. That is not necessarily the case. It may often happen that a man has a claim, which is comparatively large, in circumstances in which it is all, or nearly all that he has in the world, whereas in the case of a very powerful or wealthy individual or corporation, the amount of the claim may be small. Looking at the matter in that way, the effect of this Amendment would be to grant priority to a wealthy or powerful individual or corporation in respect of a small claim, at the expense of a small man whose claim is larger but whose means outside this claim are nonexistent or very small.
It would be much better if there could be some different criteria so that the guide to the question of whether any priority should be shown, should not be the amount of the claim involved but the proportion which the claim bears to the total resources of the claimant. If my hon. Friend or the Government could devise some Amendment to ensure that, I should be enthusiastically in favour of


it; but in the form in which it is presented to the Committee I am afraid the object which my hon. Friend has in mind would not be served. I hope that the Government, while paying due attention to the motives which have induced my hon. Friend to put the Amendment on the Order Paper, will look at the terms of the Amendment with some care having regard to the considerations I have put before the Committee.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Davies): The Government have looked carefully at this Amendment and we fully sympathise with the motives which inspired my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) to put it on the Order Paper. On the face of it, the case he made out appeared very plausible, but, if my hon. Friend looks into the matter more closely, he will see that in practice his Amendment, if accepted, would not work out fairly for the other claimants. There are two reasons for that. The first is that the duty of the Commission is to decide on the eligibility of the claims. The duty of the Commission is not to assess, as between one claimant and another, which has the greater need or which has the lesser.
The Commission must decide whether the claims are eligible or not and it must then treat all claims on an equal basis. If we introduced a system of priorities, those who receive priority would be better treated than others. In the case put forward in support of the Amendment, they would receive most favourable treatment in this respect. If the Amendment is accepted in the way in which it is now worded, it will simply mean that everybody who makes a claim for £500 which is admitted as a claim, will receive that amount of money in full. Everybody else who makes a claim will receive £500, irrespective of how great the claim may be.
In practice, when the time comes to distribute the amounts which are received among all the different claimants, it will not be 100 per cent. which will be distributed to everybody: it may be only 30 per cent. Under the Amendment, a person with a claim for £500 would receive £500 and a person with a claim for £1,000 would receive £500 and then only 30 per

cent. of the rest, which is £200, so that the latter would receive in all £700.
If my hon. Friend, in his profession, had two clients, one of whom claimed £500 and the other £1,000, and the person with the claim for £1,000 received only £700 while the first claim was paid in full, I feel sure that he would say that that was not an equitable basis on which to distribute the funds. On that ground alone, I suggest that my hon. Friend should reconsider the Amendment and withdraw it.
I would point out that the case regarding the waiting period is not so bad as he suggested. Article 5 of the draft Orders in Council makes full provision for interim part payment. It is hoped that once the claims have been assessed and it is possible to distribute the amount so far received, some payment will be made. I do not think that the small persons will necessarily have to wait for as long as he suggests.
Then, of course, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) pointed out, we cannot accept the fact that the person who makes a small claim is necessarily a person of lesser means than one who makes a large claim. In that respect, after all, the shareholders in companies are not all rich people, and we might have, in the case of Messrs. Coates, which was mentioned, or in any of these very large companies, a very large number of small shareholders whose claims are surely just as important to them, and who it is necessary should receive payment to the extent to which they are entitled to it, as would be a small person with an individual claim.
On these grounds, I suggest to my hon. Friend that we are being quite reasonable and not being harsh in rejecting the Amendment. The Government have looked at this matter sympathetically and have considered most carefully the question of priority. They have decided that they cannot introduce any means test, as was partially suggested by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, and cannot give any priorities.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Obviously, I am not going to press this Amendment, if only for the reason that, in its existing form, it would require certain provisions to be incorporated in the Order in Council. It


is still open to the Department to consider the suggestions which will be made in the discussions on the Bill before the final form of the Order in Council is fixed, and I very much hope that, as a result of this discussion, some further consideration will be given to the matter, because I am not impressed with the reasons which have been given by my bon. Friend for rejecting the Amendment.
I may not have made myself entirely clear. I think the real comparison that ought to be considered is not between two claims, one of £500 and another of £1,000 but, perhaps, between 20 or 30 claims for £500 each and one or two claims for £100,000 or £500,000. I think that is the reality of the matter. There will be a few persons with claims of about these figures, and there will be a larger number of individuals having claims for sums of under £1,000. In these circumstances, I do not think it is any hardship on a person with a claim of perhaps £100,000 that he shall not be paid until after all the small claimants of sums up to £500 have been paid.

Mr. Teeling: Let us suppose that, in the cases of some of the claimants in this country, all that they possess in the world is the £100,000 in Yugoslavia? When then?

Mr. Fletcher: That is a hypothetical question.

Mr. Teeling: No.

Mr. Fletcher: If it is a real case, if there is any hardship imposed on the person concerned, it is quite obvious from the figure given that the global amount that can be absorbed by paying everybody with claims up to £500, is very limited, and that it will not affect very much the amount which is left over for distribution among the large claimants. However, I am not tied to any form of words, and I have not attempted the job of the Parliamentary draftsman, but I hope that, before the Order in Council is framed finally, some further consideration will be given to this proposal.

Mr. Ian L. Orr-Ewing: Before any step is taken to withdraw the Amendment, I hope the Government will not be over-impressed by the argument which has just been advanced. If they were to accept the Amend-

ment, they would be setting a form of precedent which would be embarrassing, and, in fact, fatal to any Government forced to follow that precedent in years to come. The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) has been suggesting that the holders of shares in companies which may be seriously affected will not get any consideration at all, if the total claim of the enterprise exceeds £500, until after those with direct personal claims of up to £500 have been set aside.
I should like to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that that has never been the approach either of the present Government or the last Government to the system of compensation under nationalisation as applied in this country. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that this general means of compensation should be adopted widely, or only in this particular international connection. Is he suggesting that those whose property is acquired as a result of legislation passed by this House should be compensated in the same sort of manner?
To adopt such a precedent in one particular case of this nature would be a very difficult matter indeed, and it is almost impossible to imagine what the results would be in the payment of similar interests in large concerns, if this proposal were brought into effect. To select one particular class of case of this nature and give compensation is not only unjust but practically without precedent in the laws of this country. In addition, under the policy of "fair shares for all," there must be some yardstick in matters of this kind. I suggest that the argument which has been advanced on this Amendment is quite the wrong one.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. S. Silverman: I want to make it clear that I am not at all against the principle of priorities in claims of this kind, and I think the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. I. L. Orr-Ewing) is mistaken in thinking that such a principle of priorities would be unprecedented in the laws of this country. On the contrary, there is ample precedent for them in connection with the winding-up of companies and under the bankruptcy laws. I know that it is not precisely the same, but, from the point of view that we are now discussing, it is fair to say that the principle of paying small claims


in priority to large claims, and paying them in full, before the others are considered, has ample authority and precedent in the laws of our own land.
My objection and complaint about my hon. Friend's form of Amendment is that it seems to me at any rate, to apply the wrong test for such priorities. I think the test that we apply in our own law for priorities of that kind is the importance of the amount at stake to the particular applicant, as, for instance, in the case of bankruptcy, where there is an absolute priority for arrears of wages or things of that kind. If my hon. Friend's Amendment had been so drafted as to relate the degree of priority to the importance of the claim in relation to the general resources of a particular applicant, I would have been in favour of it.

Mr. I. L. Orr-Ewing: Surely, the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the priority given to arrears of wages is based on the effect of the size of the claim? It has nothing to do with it. It is the basis on which the claim is submitted that gives it the priority. Is he now suggesting a rigid form of means test?

Mr. Silverman: I think that the justification for paying wages in full, in priority to other claims, in the bankruptcy laws of this country is precisely the importance of the amount at stake to the particular applicant, having regard to his general resources. I may be wrong about it, but I have a very clear view about it, and I think that view is generally shared by those with some experience of the practical administration of these things in our own law. I do not say it is wrong to ask for priorities, and I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary in thinking that the principle of priorities is wrong. My complaint is that this Amendment applies the wrong principle. If the Amendment had been so drafted as to give an absolute priority to the payment in full of small or even large claims in respect of those applicants to whom the claim was far more important than the claims of some powerful or wealthy individuals or corporations, I would be in favour of it. I suggest to the Under-Secretary that he should give some reconsideration to these matters, and that he should not discard altogether the principle of priorities, but should consider what is

the proper principle of priorities and what is the proper yardstick.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Teeling: On a point of order. May I ask for your guidance, Major Milner? Are we allowed to discuss these Orders in Council? The Clause provides for distribution of money by Order in Council under such and such terms. The draft Orders in Council have been published.

The Chairman: I do not think it is permissible to discuss the contents of the Orders in Council. I suppose they will in due course be laid, and that then there will be opportunities to discuss them.

Mr. Teeling: The whole question turns upon the draft Orders in Council.

The Chairman: We cannot discuss the contents of the Orders in Council.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: Further to the point raised by my hon. Friend. The Bill provides for the annulment of Orders in Council by Resolution of the House of Commons. I wonder, Major Milner, if you will enlighten the Committee as to what procedure, if any, there is for proposing at any time to deal with any Orders in Council, for which a Motion to annul seems hardly the appropriate method?

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): Further to the point of order. You will see, Major Milner, as indeed you have ruled, that these Orders in Council are, of course, no part of the Bill. We took the unusual and, I think, admirable course of publishing the Orders in Council in draft in order that we might be able to explain to the House and to the Committee exactly how we hoped this machinery would operate. If hon. Members think there are any particular points in the Orders in Council which might well be amended, and if they will write to us, we shall be most happy to consider the matter before the Orders are laid. It is perfectly true that when Orders are laid there is no Parliamentary procedure for their amendment, as distinct from their annulment; but we should be glad to receive any suggestions that hon.


Members may like to put forward with regard to their amendment at this stage. That is why we took this rather unusual course of publishing them in draft.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Speaking for myself, I should like to say that the course suggested by the right hon. and learned Attorney-General fully meets the point I have in mind, which is that it is more suitable, in fact, for them to be dealt with by the method he suggests than by trying to debate them in this Committee.

Mr. E. Fletcher: On this point of order. It may be a matter of some importance for the future that we should get it clear. Speaking for myself, I entirely agree with the suggestion that the matter should be dealt with in correspondence. However, I would submit with great respect that, as a matter of form, where we are to have a Section in an Act of Parliament saying that His Majesty may by Order in Council provide so-and-so, and saying that any Order in Council under the Section may make provision, and when we have indicated to us in a detailed manner what the contents of the Orders in Council are to be, it is open to hon. Members, in a Debate upon the Clause which is to be that Section, to discuss the contents of the Orders in Council, as indicated in the Clause itself.

The Chairman: This Bill is, in the main, a machinery Bill. There will be opportunities to discuss the Orders in Council, and to accept or reject them as they stand, although, of course, they may not then be amended; and I certainly think that it would not be desirable to enter upon a detailed discussion of the merits of the Orders in Council on this Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5.—(OFFENCES.)

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Attorney-General: We desire to omit this Clause. On reflection it seemed to me that it was open to some objection on principle. As the Clause stands it does two things. It creates a new

criminal offence in the case of anyone who fails without reasonable excuse to produce books or documents or to furnish information when required by the Commission so to do; and it creates an offence punishable summarily in connection with the making of false statements in the giving of such information or the production of such documents. With the vigilance for the rights and liberties of the private subject for which His Majesty's present advisers are distinguished—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—we thought that was, perhaps, undesirable. New criminal offences ought not to be created unless they are really necessary; and it did not seem to me that these two offences were really necessary.
Clause 4, too, which the Committee has just adopted, as the Committee will see, enables the Commission, with the approval of the Lord Chancellor, to make rules requiring the attendance of particular witnesses or the production of documents. Normally, a breach of any such requirement by a witness whom the Commission wished to see would be treated as a contempt of court. This Commission, not being a court of record, would not itself have power to commit for contempt.
What we propose to do, in the new Clause I shall presently move, is to reproduce in the Bill the provisions of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, which was invoked in the course of the last Parliament, and which, in the event of a failure to comply with the lawful requirements of the tribunal to produce documents or to supply information or to give evidence, will enable the Chairman of the Commission to refer the matter to the High Court, and the High Court will then be able to deal with the case, if it thinks right, in such matters as are appropriate to a contempt of court.
As to the second part of Clause 5, that created an offence in connection with the making of false statements. That seemed to me to be objectionable because the existing law relating to perjury broadly covers this kind of matter, although it is true that it does not enable the case to be dealt with summarily in the way Clause 5 as it stands contemplated might be done. But in a Bill dealing with particular matters in relation to an ad hoc tribunal of this kind, it seemed to me that one ought not to include provisions in relation


to a field which is already covered by the existing law unless the provisions of the existing law were manifestly inadequate. That is the reason why I invite the Committee to reject this Clause and, in due time to substitute a new Clause for it.
Although I took the decision some time ago that this Clause ought to be deleted, I am very glad to have had my view fortified and confirmed subsequently by a resolution passed by the Blackburn Chamber of Commerce which the right hon. Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton) was kind enough to bring to my notice. Accordingly, I advise the Committee to reject the Clause.

Mr. R. V. Grimston: I rise only to say how much we on this side of the Committee appreciate yet another instance of the Government's following the advice of the Opposition. My mind goes back over the last four and a half years and I recall the many occasion on which we have chided the Government for creating new offences. We are very glad they have followed our advice this time, and have had second thoughts about this Clause.

Question put, and negatived.

Clauses 6 to 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause.—(ENFORCEMENT OF ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES, PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND FURNISHING OF INFORMATION.)

(1) If any person—

(a) on being summoned, in accordance with rules made under section four of this Act, as a witness before the Commission, fails to attend; or
(b) being in attendance as a witness refuses to take an oath or make an affirmation required in accordance with such rules to be taken or made, or to answer any question to which the Commission may legally require an answer; or
(c) being required in accordance with such rules to produce any document or furnish any information, fails without reasonable excuse to comply with that requirement; or
(d) does any other thing which would, if the Commission had been a court of law having power to commit for contempt, have been contempt of court;
the chairman of the Commission may certify the offence of that person under his hand to the High Court, and the court may thereupon inquire into the alleged offence and may punish or take steps for the punishment of

that person in like manner as if he had been guilty of contempt of the court.

(2) A witness before the Commission shall be entitled to the same immunities and privileges as if he were a witness before the High Court.

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Having explained its effect and purpose, I need not, perhaps, add anything to what I have already said.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments, as amended, considered: read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — HIGHWAYS (PROVISION OF CATTLE-GRIDS) BILL

Order for Consideration, as amended, read.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 1, page 2, line 6, Clause 3, page 4, line 37 and page 5, line 5, Clause 7, page 6, line 39, Clause 9, page 7, lines 25 and 44, and of the new Clause (Provision of cattle-grids off roads) and of the Amendments to the Schedule, page 12, line 8, and to the Title, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Barnes."—[The Solicitor-General.]

Amendment made: At end, add:
and in respect of the Amendments to Clause 1, page 1, line 18, Clause 2, page 3, line 47, Clause 9, page 7, line 25 and Schedule, page 12, line 5, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Viscount Hinchingbrooke."—[Viscount Hinchingbrooke.]

Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(PROVISION OF CATTLE-GRIDS AND BY-PASSES.)

5.2 p.m.

Mr. H. L. D'A. Hopkinson: I beg to move, in page 1, to leave out lines 18 to 22.
The effect of removing these lines of the proviso will be that the provision


of a gate or by-pass will be made compulsory in all cases where cattle-grids are erected. The object of this Amendment is to avoid the extinction of the right of way for cattle and sheep, on the one hand, and horses and horse-driven vehicles on the other, and also to facilitate the transit of bicycles and pedestrians. Since the last Debate took place, I have made inquiries among many farmer friends on Exmoor and they are all agreed that this is necessary.
I am given to understand that the Minister intends to accept this Amendment, and I should like to thank him and welcome his decision. I believe that acceptance of the Amendment will entail the deletion of Clause 2 (4), which seems to be consequential upon the proviso. Perhaps the Minister will consider looking at these words and introducing an Amendment when the Bill is considered in another place.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Frank Soskice): As the hon. Gentleman said, my right hon. Friend has given this matter very careful consideration and is prepared to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 2, line 6, to leave out from "where," to "the," in line 10, and to insert:
after complying with the provisions of the Schedule to this Act the appropriate authority determine, as respects any common or waste land not forming part of the road but adjoining the road or adjacent thereto, that it is expedient so to do.
This Amendment is designed to meet two Amendments moved during the Committee stage of this Bill. One was designed to leave out the whole of the proviso to Clause 1 (3), and the other was to widen the application of the existing proviso. What we seek to do in this Amendment is to accept the proposal that the proviso should be widened in the sense in which it was intended it should be widened, and also to provide, as I think it was suggested during the Committee stage, might be appropriate, that the requirements of the Schedule should be complied with before action was taken in accordance with that proviso. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree that this meets the spirit of their proposals and that the

Amendment improves the Bill and meets the arguments they advance.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: My hon. Friends and I are grateful to the Government for this, the first of a number of Amendments which they have put down at this stage.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(REMOVAL OF CATTLE-GRIDS AND DISCONTINUANCE OF BY-PASSES.)

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I beg to move, in page 3, line 47, at the end to insert:
Provided that the powers given by this subsection shall not be exercised until after complying with the provisions of the Schedule to this Act.
I think we have exacted, or shall have exacted from the Government by the end of the day, a number of important concessions on the Bill, but there remains one thorny question which, so far, neither the Minister nor the Solicitor-General has given any indication that he will concede. This Amendment ties up with the Amendment to page 12, line 5 of the Schedule. It relates to the question of rights attaching to persons who have already experienced the use of grids to have those rights upheld through the procedure of the Schedule. We still attach very great importance to this question. In Committee the Minister said:
If the character of the land changed, if there was no need for the grid and if the highway authority came to the conclusion that its purpose no longer existed, why should the highway authority be put to the expense and trouble of advertisements, inquiries, objections and appeals to the Minister when all they are doing is restoring to the users their original rights?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th May, 1950; Vol. 475, c. 1432.]
We maintain that the right hon. Gentleman there is taking the purely transport point of view. He should not forget that he has a dual rôle. He is Jekyll and Hyde, or perhaps it would be more appropriate to say Castor and Pollux. When he deals with user of transport's right on the road he is Castor; when he deals with the rights of agriculture he is Pollux. He has forgotten the rôle of Pollux today.
In spite of farming areas being developed as housing estates or having, in any way whatever, lost their character,


there still remains some right to agricultural interests to have a grid remain in place. Where the highway authority comes along and takes the view that that grid is no longer necessary, we think those rights should be upheld through the procedure of the Schedule. I cited in Committee the precedent, or what is almost a precedent, which exists in the Schedule, paragraph 1 (d), stating:
whether it is unnecessary that a by-pass should continue to be maintained for use in connection with a cattle-grid which has not been removed.
I sought to point out to the Committee that if a by-pass is removed and the complaints associated with the removal of the by-pass are subjected to the Schedule, and appeals lie ultimately to the Minister, for much the same kind of reasons in reverse the removal of a grid ought to carry a right of appeal to the Minister.
If someone objects to the removal of a by-pass because he still wants to drive his animals through clear of any gridded interference, his rights are upheld; he may also want to complain about the removal of the grid which contains his animals and prevents them from straying. One can imagine a housing estate where the houses are most or less enclosed bordering upon a piece of common land, and animals are free to wander on the outskirts of the enclosed land and come down to some main road. A grid has formerly been upon that road to prevent the animals from straying upon the highway. The highway authority then removes the grid and local landed interests will be affected and will have a right of complaint. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Amory) raised a most important point on the last occasion about the effect on persons who have made a financial contribution, and we have heard nothing from the Minister on that subject.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): I have looked into this matter and I regret that I do not see any case for accepting the Amendment. I am sure that no highway authority which has already gone through the whole of the procedure and consultations, and accepted the need for the establishment of a grid, would conduct itself in such an irresponsible way as to remove the grid if the need for it still remained. That being so, it does not appear to me to be neces-

sary in this case to put the authority to all the trouble and expense of the procedure in the Schedule if the circumstances have so entirely altered that the grid is not necessary.
The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), in presenting his case, referred to the point relating to costs that was raised by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Amory). I shall be meeting that point later on. It will be met by subsection (2) of the new Clause which I shall move on the Report stage. I think I admitted on the last occasion that I had not examined that point, but I think I have now met it. The farthest that I am prepared to go—and I hope it will settle this issue—is this: I am prepared later on to consider whether I should introduce the same procedure of consultation in this matter. I am sorry that I cannot accept the Amendment, but between now and the consideration of the Bill in another place, I will see whether some wording can be introduced which would ensure at least consultation with the interests that are likely to be affected before a highway authority actually removes the grid. I hope that will be satisfactory.

5.15 p.m.

Sir Austin Hudson: I am a little disappointed with the Minister's reply, although I am glad he is prepared to consider whether he can introduce some method of consultation. I think really that he is jibbing. He referred to the expense to which the highway authority will be put, but if one looks at the Schedule one sees that all the authority would have to do would be to
publish in two successive weeks in one or more local newspapers circulating in the locality … a notice 
to let people know that this grid was going to be removed. If under paragraph (2) no representation is made, or any representation is withdrawn,
the appropriate authority may proceed to determine the question.
All that my noble Friend is asking is that in the case of the removal of a cattle-grid, that notice shall be given, and that if anybody has any objection he can adopt the procedure as specified in the Schedule. I do not think my noble Friend is proposing to press the matter now, but I hope the Minister will take into consideration what I have just said.

Mr. John Hay: I felt that the Minister's reply was somewhat disappointing and, to a degree, unsatisfactory, but in view of the clear point which he has made, I hope this matter will not be pressed very far. I should, however, like to say this. Having read what took place in Committee, I observe that the right hon. Gentleman put forward another argument which I felt had very little validity, and I hope he will forgive me if I mention it now. He said:
When we are infringing the rights of the public or of individuals, as the case may be, it is understandable that we should take precautions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th May, 1950; Vol. 475, c. 1432.]
What we are suggesting in this Amendment is that rights may have grown up in the course of a long period of time—rights not only of the local authority but of those people in the surrounding district who have found the cattle-grids of some value. Therefore, those sort of rights should be equally considered as well as the rights of the local authority and the administrative convenience, as it appears to them, of not having to go through the procedure of the Schedule. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will look at this matter again between now and the consideration of this Bill in another place. Possibly he may see his way to recommend that our suggestion shall be considered and approved.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: We can hardly expect all our points to be met in full—we have so many of them—and, as the Minister has promised to look into this question again before a later stage of the Bill, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(REPAIR OF CATTLE-GRIDS AND BY-PASSES IN ENGLAND.)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 4, line 37, to leave out subsections (1) and (2), and to insert:
(1) A cattle-grid provided in pursuance of this Act for any road, any gate or other works on a road provided for use in connection with such a cattle-grid, and any works provided for the purposes of a by-pass provided in pursuance of this Act, shall be repairable by the appropriate authority.
This Amendment is designed to implement the undertaking that I gave during

the Committee stage with reference to the question of repairs to cattle-grids. Apprehension was expressed by hon. Members opposite that the doctrine of nonfeasance might result in a situation in which, if a person was injured owing to a cattle-grid falling out of repair and becoming dangerous in consequence, he might by virtue of the doctrine of nonfeasance find that he was unable to recover damages for the injury which he sustained. I undertook to introduce an Amendment which would have the effect of making that doctrine inapplicable, at any rate, so far as the cattle-grid and the works were concerned. What I have sought to do in the Amendment is to implement that undertaking.
As most hon. Members know, the law relating to nonfeasance and misfeasance and the difference between the two is extremely subtle and complex. We have tried by our Amendment to bring about this situation: the question of repairing the cattle-grid when it falls into disrepair should not be one which appertains to the appropriate authority as a highway authority. If it were a function of the appropriate authority in its capacity as a highway authority, then the doctrine of nonfeasance would protect it from an action for damages. Therefore, we have tried by our Amendment to make the duty of repair a duty incumbent upon the appropriate authority otherwise than in its capacity as a highway authority. We think that that has the effect of excluding the applicability of the doctrine of nonfeasance in this case.
I think the noble Lord asked me when we were discussing the matter before whether I could undertake to have the Amendment put down on the Report Stage, and I said I would try to do so. I make that comment because I gather that some apprehension has been expressed whether this change that we have made does, in fact, effect the purpose that we have in mind. Certain doubts have been expressed and have been brought to my notice as to the reasons on which that apprehension is based. Although I move this Amendment, which I certainly thought and still hope does achieve the purpose we have in mind, I will also in advance, before apprehensions are voiced, give careful consideration to what I understand are doubts in the minds of hon. Members opposite. I hope this


Amendment achieves our purpose, but we shall carefully consider the arguments which I gather exist to the effect that there may be a possible defect in our draft. We shall consider that point between now and the time when this Bill goes to another place.

Mr. Hay: I should like to express the appreciation of those of us on this side of the Committee to the ready way in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman acceded to our suggestion on the Committee Stage that something should be done to clear up this point. As I understand the Amendment, and linking it with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said on the Comimttee stage, the position is that if this Amendment is now agreed to and forms part of the eventual Act, it will be clear beyond any shadow of doubt that when the appropriate authority instal a cattle-grid and works they will do so not in their capacity as a highway authority but in rather a different capacity altogether. Then, by reason of the case of Skelton v. The Epsom and Ewell Rural District Council which he mentioned on the Committee stage, automatically ipso jacto any person injured will be able to recover. As I understand it, that is the law which the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to put into this Bill, and I shall certainly support it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: in page 5, line 5, leave out from "authority," to the end of line 7.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause, as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7.—(SUPERSESSION OF GATES BY CATTLE-GRIDS.)

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, in page 6, line 39, at the end, to add:
(3) Where in pursuance of subsection (1) of this section a gate has been removed (whether by, or in compliance with a requirement of, the appropriate authority) and the appropriate authority subsequently remove the cattle-grid, then, if within twelve months after the removal of the cattle-grid any person reinstals a gate in the exercise of a right of which the exercise was suspended while the cattle-grid was provided, the appropriate authority shall on demand repay the expenses reasonably incurred in reinstalling the gate.
This Amendment is put down to meet the points that were made by the hon. and gallant Member for Devon, North

(Brigadier Peto). It will entitle a person who rightfully replaces a gate after removal of a cattle-grid to recover the reasonable costs of doing so. The hon. and gallant Member for Devon, North, is unable to be in his place this afternoon, but he has intimated to me that this Amendment meets his point and he is quite satisfied with it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9.—(AGREEMENTS FOR USE OF LAND FOR CATTLE-GRIDS OR BYPASSES.)

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, in page 7, line 25, at the end, to insert:
or otherwise in respect of their entering into the agreement.
This Amendment is intended to meet the point raised by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. J. Morrison) to cover legal charges as well as the actual costs of the land.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: We are very glad that the Government have put the Amendment down.

Amendment agreed to.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in line 44, to leave out "or county borough, "and to insert" borough or county district."
This Amendment was put down on the Committee stage but my right hon. Friend withdrew it because, during the discussion, doubt was expressed whether it was in the proper form. My right hon. Friend has looked at it again and we think that it is in the proper form. It is designed to produce the result that the agreement in question has to be registered in the local register of a county borough or a county district council. Those are the alternatives. If hon. Members would substitute the words we are seeking to insert, "borough or county district," and leave out the words "or county borough" I think, he will find that the Clause reads correctly,
any county borough or county district council.
I think it is in the proper form.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: We were in trouble with this before because we thought the right hon. Gentleman was trying to exclude the county council. We


thought they ought not to be excluded. I understand that it is more convenient for all concerned if these agreements are registered with county boroughs and county district councils so that the original Amendment was right and the right hon. Gentleman is right in putting it down again at this stage.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause.—(PROVISION OF CATTLE-GRIDS OFF ROADS.)

(1) The Minister may make regulations authorising an appropriate authority, in any such case as may be determined by or under the regulations, to provide, for a road where (in pursuance of the regulations or otherwise) a gate is or is to be provided, a cattle-grid off the road.

(2) As respects the provision of a cattle-grid as aforesaid, or any cattle-grid provided before the commencement of this Act off the road for which the cattle-grid was provided, this Act shall apply subject to such exceptions, modifications and adaptations as may be provided by regulations under this section.

(3) The power to make regulations conferred by this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument; and any statutory instrument under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause is designed to meet proposals by the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke). His proposal was that it should be possible to put a cattle-grid outside the boundaries of a road. This Clause empowers the appropriate authority to place a cattle-grid at the side and outside the boundaries of a road, either adjoining an existing gate or in conjunction with a gate to be provided across the road, under powers which will be provided under the regulations. I think the Clause meets the objection which the noble Lord had in mind and which, indeed, was also voiced by several of his hon. Friends.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedule.—(PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINATION BY APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY OF CERTAIN QUESTIONS.)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 12, line 8, at the end, to insert:
(b) whether it is expedient to place any part of a cattle-grid, or provide a by-pass, on any such land not forming part of a road and not belonging to the appropriate authority as is mentioned in the proviso to subsection (3) of the said section one, or.
This is an Amendment which I can only describe as consequential.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I do not understand the meaning of the word "such" before "land," since there is no reference to land prior to that in the Schedule.

The Solicitor-General: The noble Lord will see that paragraph 1 (a) of the Schedule relates back to Clause 1 and, equally, "any such land" also refers back to land described in Clause 1. The word "such" has to be inserted in order to relate it to that land.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

TITLE

Amendment made: In page 1, line 1, after "in," insert "or in connection with."—[Mr. Barnes.]

Bill reported, with Amendments.

As amended (in Committee and on re-committal), considered.

New Clause.—(CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARDS EXPENDITURE OF APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES.)

(1) The appropriate authority may enter into an agreement with any person at whose instance a cattle-grid has been or is to be provided in pursuance of this Act, or any other person willing to make a contribution towards expenses of the authority under this Act, for the making by the said person of such a contribution (whether by a single payment or by periodical payments) of such amount as may be specified in the agreement and either towards all expenditure of the authority under this Act or towards such description of such expenditure as may be so specified.

(2) An agreement under this section may contain such incidental and consequential provisions as appear to the parties thereto expedient for the purposes of the agreement, and in particular such an agreement providing for a contribution towards the cost of installing a cattle-grid may provide for repayment


of the contribution, to such extent as may be specified in the agreement in the event of the cattle-grid being removed.

(3) In determining whether or not to provide a cattle-grid in pursuance of this Act an appropriate authority shall be entitled to have regard to the extent to which persons who in the opinion of the authority will derive special benefit from the provision of the cattle-grid are willing to enter into agreements under this section.—[Mr. Barnes.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The House will remember that in Committee we had a discussion on the need for highway authorities to receive contributions from persons who were interested in the establishment of cattle-grids. In this Clause I meet all the points then submitted. As a matter of fact, the Clause goes further than the original Amendments because it contemplates agreements not only with persons responsible for the maintenance of the road but also with those who may wish to have the grid installed and who have an interest either as landowners or farmers as the case may be.

Sir A. Hudson: I should like to thank the Minister for meeting the three Amendments which this new Clause covers and which we discussed at some length on the Committee stage. It may seem ungrateful for me to say so, but I wonder whether the new Clause is not perhaps a little wider than we contemplated. Under my new Clause and the two Amendments, all in pretty well the same words, we contemplated only unclassified roads, whereas this new Clause makes the provision of assistance towards paying for these grids available in the case of a trunk road, a first, second or third class classified road. Probably it may not make any difference, but when we put down our Amendment we were thinking merely of unclassified roads.
Another point, which is perhaps more important, is that we tried to impose a ceiling of some kind on the amount which should be given to assist in paying for these grids—a ceiling of one-third. I think some figure might be given. For instance, I do not think we should expect those assisting the appropriate authorities to pay more than half.
Subsection (2) of the new Clause says:
An agreement under this section may contain such incidental and consequential provisions as appear … to be expedient.
Could the Minister say what was in his mind there? I am not quite sure. It deals, of course, with the case of repayment, which was raised in another Amendment, to anybody who has contributed towards a grid, when the appropriate authority removes the grid; and we are grateful for that. On the whole, I think the Clause should assist in providing the greatest number of grids, and that is what we have been after all the time. I welcome the Clause and thank the Minister for introducing it.

Mr. Barnes: In connection with subsection (2), the hon. Member will recall that the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Amory) raised the point that any person who had contributed towards the installation of a grid should be protected if the grid were removed. Subsection (2) has been inserted to meet that point.

Sir A. Hudson: That is the second half. In the first half it says:
An agreement under this section may contain such incidental and consequential provisions as appear to the parties thereto expedient for the purposes of the agreement….
and then it goes on, and this is the point about which I am not sure—
and in particular such an agreement providing for a contribution….

Mr. McKie: I fully agreed with the first speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Sir A. Hudson) because I think this Clause goes a good deal further than was asked by my hon. Friends in the Committee stage. In Committee I am afraid that I had to adopt a slightly different line from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North, on this point. I want the Minister to keep this in mind—there may be very many owners of land—and it is especially the case in Scotland—who are not in a very good financial position. I am sure the Minister well knows that. We do not want to see them placed in even more awkward financial straits. I am sure my hon. Friend completely concurs in that sentiment and, indeed, he said that some kind of protection should be given so that not more than 50 per cent.—I think that is what he had in mind—should be demanded from those people.
Perhaps it may be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to clarify the position when the Bill reaches another place. I feel even more strongly on the point than does my hon. Friend because I can think of many cases in Scotland where people who, if they were called upon to provide large sums for cattle-grids, might be very seriously embarrassed. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree with me, for he knows a great deal about Scotland and knows that there are certain cases in which hardship would arise, unless there is some kind of clarification of the amount they will be called upon to find.
I should like to buttress what I have said by reminding the Minister that when the Bill was first mooted, even before it was produced before the House for the first time, the County Councils' Association in Scotland was seriously disturbed because they had heard a rumour that, as a result of the Bill, private individuals might be seriously embarrassed having regard to the amounts of money they might be called upon to provide. It turned out, of course, that their fears were largely unfounded, because when the Bill was first printed there was not this provision with regard to private individuals which this Clause seeks to introduce. For those reasons, I hope the Minister will take action on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend. I assure him there is no partisan feeling in this Committee. In the words of Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, we are acting as a Council of State and the one desire is not to obstruct but to make the Bill a better one, and certainly not to cause hardship to any class of individuals.

Mr. Hay: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Sir A. Hudson). I am a little puzzled by part of the Clause, and I should be grateful if the Minister would say something about it. I am referring to subsection (3). I have looked several times at the form of words and I find them incomprehensible. Would the Minister give us some explanation of what is intended? It may be he has the key which will unlock the door, but at the moment I cannot see any daylight at all.

Mr. Barnes: Subsection (3) is designed to enable the highway authority to take into consideration the amount of contri-

butions they are going to accept before they undertake to instal a cattle-grid. I would point out to the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) that there is no compulsory aspect to this Clause. It will all be subject to negotiation between the highway authorities, and if it is subject to such negotiation I do not see the need to put on any limitation. That was the reason why it was stated that the Clause, as now drafted, is wider than the original Amendment.

Mr. McKie: But surely the Minister will agree that private individuals have not the same rights as highway authorities. There is no protection for them, and they might be in a position of not having very reasonable complaints considered.

Mr. Barnes: This Clause has been drafted to meet points that were submitted to me in the Committee stage, and one point was that a highway authority might receive contributions from persons who were interested in providing a cattle-grid which they might not instal on their own responsibility. Why widen the new Clause to restrict the freedom of negotiations between the local authority and the persons concerned? There is no compulsion for them to agree to 50 per cent., 25 per cent. or any other figure. It is a matter to be covered by agreement.

Mr. McKie: I was only thinking of the non-occupying owner. He is the person about whom I am concerned.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The right hon. Gentleman has answered two of the points raised from this side of the House, but he has still to answer the first point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Sir A. Hudson), who wanted to know what was meant by the first two lines of subsection (2) which reads:
An agreement under this section may contain such incidental and consequential provisions as appear to the parties thereto expedient for the purposes of the agreement.

Mr. Barnes: I take it that that is to cover the details of the negotiations that cannot be defined in the Bill at this stage. It may be the character of the work and all kinds of issues like that, which might arise in negotiations of this kind and which cannot be fairly stated here. Those words are put in simply to give the parties


to the agreement freedom of negotiation on any matter that might arise in connection therewith.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 1.—(PROVISION OF CATTLE-GRIDS AND BY-PASSES.)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 1, line 5, after "Where," to insert:
whether on the representations of owners or occupiers of agricultural land or otherwise, and after such consultation with any such owners and occupiers as the appropriate authority consider requisite.
This Amendment is designed to meet a proposal of the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), that the Clause should be redrafted in such a way as to make it perfectly clear that the initiative for a cattle-grid may also come from owners and occupiers of agricultural land. It also provides for consultations to be held with those persons when desirable.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 4, leave out from second "by," to end of line 5, and insert "section nine of this Act."—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 14.—(PROVISIONS AS TO CATTLE-GRIDS AND BY-PASSES PROVIDED BEFORE COMMENCEMENT OF ACT.)

5.45 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move in page 10, line 15, at beginning, to insert: "If, as respects."
It would be for the convenience of the Committee if with this Amendment we considered the following six Amendments to lines 20, 27, 29, 30, and 31 because they all affect the same purpose. What they are meant to do is to make Amendments in Clause 14, which are rendered necessary by changes that have already been introduced. One of the changes was the omission of the words, "by a local authority" in Clause 14 (2) as it originally stood. The second change was in Clause 3, which makes it impossible for local authorities to rely upon the doctrine of nonfeasance in relation to the repair of cattle-grids.
The result is that if this Clause were not altered the local authority might find itself saddled with a liability to repair a

cattle-grid installed by anybody, and also would have the additional liability put upon it of the non-applicability of the misfeasance Clause. The result of that is that the Amendment rather alters the form of the Clause, and instead of the catle-grid being made legal for a year until application is made to the Minister to approve the decision, the position under the combined Amendments is that the Minister may approve it, subject to special conditions, and when he approves it as being provided under the terms of the Bill then, indeed as is only fair, do the liabilities for repair lie against the local authority. All the other Amendments make this change in the Bill, and they are entirely consequential on the changes already made.
The two new subsections, in addition to what I have said, give the appropriate authority in any particular case power to carry out any works which the Minister requires as a condition of his giving his undertaking, and without that power, which is now specifically given to them, they would not be able to comply with the undertaking.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In line 20, leave out from "Act," to "made," in line 25, and insert "application is."

In line 27, leave out "has approved," and insert "approves."

In line 29, leave out "has given," and insert "gives."

In line 30, after "work," insert:
the conclusion of an agreement under section (Contribution towards expenditure of appropriate authorities) of this Act.

In line 31, at end, insert:
then as from the giving of the Minister's approval unconditionally or, as the case may be, compliance with all conditions subject to which the Minister gives his approval, the cattle-grid, works or by-pass shall be deemed to have been provided by the appropriate authority in pursuance of this Act.
(3) Where the Minister gives his approval of a cattle-grid, works or by-pass subject to conditions, the appropriate authority shall have power to carry out any work, or do any other thing, which is requisite for complying with the conditions; and in particular (but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions of this subsection) sections five, eight and nine of this Act shall apply in relation to the exercise of powers conferred by the foregoing provisions of this


subsection as they apply in relation to the corresponding powers conferred by the foregoing provisions of this Act."—[The Solicitor-General.]

Schedule.—(PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINATION BY APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY OF CERTAIN QUESTIONS.)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 13, line 48, at end, to insert:
Provided that the powers conferred by this paragraph shall not be exercised, on land off the road which is occupied, except with the consent of the occupier.
This is designed to meet a point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) during the Committee stage. It was to the effect that the notices, which the Schedule provides for, should not be put upon land off the road if that land is occupied unless with the consent of the occupier. It was felt that possibly a notice might be put in front of the windows of a house. or something of that sort, and a local authority should not be able to do that and block a window, except with the agreement of the occupier of the land. The Amendment meets this point.

Colonel Clarke: I am grateful to the Minister for having considered this point, but I would point out to him that in answering me on the Committee stage he said that he had no objection to the point I had raised, but he wished to make sure that my Amendment contained the appropriate wording and expressed a desire to examine it before he accepted it. I said:
Of course, it may be better to improve the wording without changing the sense."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th May, 1950; Vol. 475, c. 1473.]
I am suggesting that this Amendment does somewhat change the sense because the Amendment I moved referred to "owners and occupiers." The Amendment now before us refers to "occupiers" only. I think that has to a very considerable extent altered the sense. I do not want to go into the question of owners being treated as of less importance than they should be, but I think that it may be very difficult if the man who actually owns the house has no say in this matter, and his tenant is allowed to do something which in the owner's view is inimical to the amenities of the area and offensive to himself. I notice that in an

Amendment moved earlier by the right hon. Gentleman, to which we agreed, owners and occupiers are referred to. I suggest that it might be possible for this matter to be further considered on a later stage of the Bill.

The Solicitor-General: This was a point which we considered, but, after all, the occupier is the person primarily concerned. It is not as though we were talking about a permanent structure which might affect the interests of the owner. This is simply a notice which is temporarily put upon the land and is then removed, and I do not think that it would be in anyone's interest if the owner had to be sought out—and it may be difficult to ascertain who he is and to find where he is—when he is not in any material sense concerned about the temporary notice being put on the land. The person whose amenities may be affected is the person actually in occupation and enjoying the land. For that reason, we think that it may be a disadvantage to everyone concerned if the entirely unnecessary procedure of finding out the owner has to be gone through, when probably the owner would not be concerned in the least with the putting up of a temporary notice on the land.

Amendment agreed to.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
I want to take the opportunity of thanking hon. Members in all parts of the House for the way in which they have assisted me in getting this Bill through expeditiously, and for the improvements which have been made in it. I remember very clearly that when the Bill received its First Reading it was greeted by loud and ironical cheers on the other side of the House. Discussions in Committee and on the Report stage have shown that, while probably there are many Measures introduced into this Chamber which affect much wider interests than this Bill, nevertheless, under the present circumstances of this Parliament, it is a very useful contribution towards providing certain facilities that are needed in the countryside. I should like, therefore, to acknowledge the value of the assistance which I have received in getting it through.

5.54 p.m.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I am glad to respond in the same spirit. The essence of good legislation is that it should be the result of give and take on both sides of the House, and we certainly have had this on this occasion. The right hon. Gentleman talked about the Bill having been received with jeers I do not think that that has ever been the case. I know that the party opposite claim it as a major piece of legislation in this Parliament.
From the point of view of draftsmanship this is a Bill of "purest ray serene." It is a well-drafted and well-examined Bill, and in that respect very much better than some of the gigantic, hasty, and ill-considered Measures of the last Parliament, for one of which the right hon. Gentleman was himself responsible. The right hon. Gentleman's own character has actually changed in five years. He has enhanced his good humour and his intelligence. I cannot think what the reason can be, unless it is the numerical power of the Opposition. To the connoissuer of legislation as to the connoisseur of art, this Bill is like the discovery of a well-painted miniature in a garret of wasted and desolate canvases.
There are a number of subjects which we have not been able to deal with by legislation, and I do not think that it is outside the bounds of order to refer to them. The right hon. Gentleman has given us many concessions. We have achieved prior consultation with local interests, the sharing of cost between local authorities and landed and farming interests, compulsory by-passes, the alternative siting or grids. Last but not least, the right hon. Gentleman has built better than he knows because he has invaded the obsolete doctrine of non-feasance. I am told that the Law Society are already getting busy about making this small provision generally applicable throughout the whole range of the English law.
We have failed to get the right of appeal on the removal of a grid, but the right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to say that he will, in some respects, meet us on this in another place. There still remains the question of the need for flexibility in the size and cost of grids. We have not been able to

lay down anything in a Bill about this, but I think that £200 to £300 as the cost of a grid is excessive. I know that in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton), who is not present, a grid was put down before the war—and a very satisfactory one—for £10. It must be the case that in many of these rural roads it will be possible to put down grids which are relatively inexpensive, even if we have to go up to very high figures for those on the main trunk thoroughfares. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman's regulations under the appropriate Clause will cover the question of the cost of the provision of these grids.
There is still some lack of provision for assistance on unclassified roads, but that may come in time. Indeed, I am quite certain that we shall have to pass amending legislation on this subject within two or three years because, as the result of the establishment of these grids, there will be greater wear and tear on the secondary roads throughout the country. If the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) is right in saying that the farming community ought to suffer a diminution in their money power for the next few years, they will be the first to come along and complain that they cannot keep up these roads in the countryside.

Mr. Paton: Is it in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for the noble Lord on Third Reading to discuss things that are not in the Bill?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I thought that the hon. Member was going a little wide of the Bill.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, who seems so passionately anxious to get on with the next Bill, I must ask him to possess his soul in patience while we have a final word on this subject. These are matters all subject to regulations, specifically provided for in Clause 10 of the Bill, and they will follow from the legislation in which the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Paton) has taken no interest at all, in spite of the fact that he is a county Member of Parliament.

Mr. Paton: I am not. There are no county divisions in Norwich.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Perhaps there ought to be. May I say one final word about the repair of fencing, in cases where grids are being put down on common land and open land in general? Fences have deteriorated in the past because of the straying of animals and because of the ease with which they can go down the roads. Now the right hon. Gentleman, quite rightly, will provide for the establishment of grids on these roads, which will necessitate the keeping up of fences leading up to these grids.
I ask the Minister, in his regulations, to empower the agricultural executive committees to issue warnings and instructions to farmers and to give them all possible advice and assistance in keeping up the fences, as they will have to do under the Bill. We are very glad on this side to have been of assistance to the right hon. Gentleman in the passage of this Measure, which will do something to increase food production, to facilitate the use of the roads and to bring urban and rural interests into ever closer harmony.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — COAL MINING (SUBSIDENCE) BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 23rd May.]

[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

New Clause.—(ONUS OF PROOF AS TO CAUSE OF DAMAGE.)

Where, in any proceedings under this Act, the question arises whether any structural damage to a dwelling-house to which this Act applies or to any such part of a building as is mentioned in subsection (1) of section three of this Act is subsidence damage, and it is shown that the nature of the damage and the circumstances are such as to indicate that the damage may be subsidence damage, the onus shall be on the National Coal Board to show that the damage is not subsidence damage.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

6.2 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Frank Soskice): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
When the discussion on this Bill terminated on the previous occasion, the Committee were considering where the onus should lie with regard to proving that any particular damage constituted subsidence damage within the meaning of the Bill. Members on both sides were anxious that the Bill should put the onus on the National Coal Board, and in this Clause we have endeavoured to bring that about. A similar Clause, standing in the names of Members opposite, also appears on the Order Paper, designed to achieve the same purpose. We carefully considered it, and we thought the best way to meet the wishes of Members on both sides was by the Clause the Second Reading of which I am now moving.
We put the onus, in the first place, on the householder to show that there is some damage, that the circumstances generally are such, not to indicate that the damage was done by coal getting, but simply that it is possible it may have been done by coal getting. We simply require the householder to show that it is possible that the damage was done by the mining of coal in the vicinity. Once it can be shown there is a possibility that it might have been so done, then the onus is shifted under this Clause to the National Coal Board to show that the damage was not done by coal getting. That achieves the purpose which hon. Members on both sides had in mind, the purpose which is also sought to be achieved by the Clause put down in the names of Members opposite.
In their Clause, the onus is put on the householder to show that coal was being worked underneath the house. In point of fact, it is much less favourable to the householder than is this Clause. All the householder will have to do, if this Clause is accepted, is to point to the nature of the damage, perhaps a crack in the wall, and refer to the fact that there was coal-working somewhere in the vicinity, but not necessarily underneath the house. If he is able to do that, and the county court thinks it is possible that the damage was caused by coal-working, the onus is shifted to the National Coal Board. I hope the Committee will agree that this is the right way to meet the general desire that was expressed.

Mr. Brendan Bracken: We are delighted


to see the right hon. and learned Gentleman restored to our counsels, and we thank him for his most generous tribute to the Opposition. It was my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) who pressed an Amendment in these terms on the Government. It was not at that time acceptable, but the Government have now seen the light; and who are we to criticise them for their earlier obstinacy? As I understand it, we are the people who now have to represent the mining community in the House, because unfortunately a large number of mining Members are away from the Chamber, as they do not like this Bill, although I do not blame them for that.
I thank the Solicitor-General for what he has done. He has conferred a considerable benefit on small people who are not conscious, from time to time, of their legal claims. This Clause goes a long way towards meeting the argument put forward by my hon. Friends, and we are grateful for it. Sometimes I feel that just as Malta got the G.C. during the war, the Opposition, particularly those connected with the fuel and power committee, ought to get the Order of Merit for labouring away and trying to improve this Government's sloppy legislation. We get little credit for it, except when the Solicitor-General appears. In these circumstances, it is a very happy experience for us to have the glowing tribute the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given. However, we are rather modest. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member wish to say something? I think he is right to soliloquise.

Mr. James Glanville: I merely said that I was enjoying this very much.

Mr. Bracken: All I can say is that we are grateful to the Solicitor-General. It obviously places a great burden on the patience of the Chair to have to listen to so many speeches on coal subsidence, but our hard labours have at last been rewarded. The Government realise how right we were to be the miners' friends, even though we do not owe anything to them.

Mr. Tom Brown: Earlier today we had a rather interesting lecture on good manners, the effects of which re-

main with me at the present moment. I wish to offer my thanks to my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Bracken: Hear, hear.

Mr. Brown: If the right hon. Gentleman will wait a minute, I am coming to him. I wish to offer my thanks to my right hon. and learned Friend and the Department for bringing forward this Clause. Representations have been made to him from this side, and he has responded to them.
The right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken) started on the right foot but did not travel very far in the race before he spoilt himself by his insinuations against those of us who have tried to play our part in the passage of this Bill. I wish that he would restrain his feelings sometimes and pay a tribute to this side of the Committee as well as to his side. For any help we can get from the Opposition on a Bill of this character we are intensely grateful, but for our part we are grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for having acceded to our representations.

Mr. John McKay: I am rather surprised that the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East, and Christ-church (Mr. Bracken) should assert that the Government have seen the light. Anybody who compares the two proposed new Clauses on the Order Paper will see that the Government's proposal does the best thing possible for those who might suffer from subsidence, whereas that tabled by the Opposition is of a very limited kind. The Opposition proposal is limited in many respects. Under it a man would have to prove that workings had taken place within 10 years, and also that the coal had been extracted from directly underneath his house.
It may be argued that such an impression has been made upon the Government that they have climbed down and changed their opinion, but when we remember that the Government are in power and can either accept a proposed new Clause as drafted in its very limited form or reject it, or apply their minds to the subject and draft an alternative new Clause which is a great improvement upon the original suggestion, it will be recognised that in this case the Government have gone to


the utmost limit in extending the Bill, and all credit is due to them. They have done splendidly in widening this Bill to the utmost possible extent.

Sir Herbert Williams: I should like to add one or two remarks, as one who has taken an active part in this Bill, and perhaps thereby contributed to the tabling of this proposed new Clause. Let us be quite frank and admit that this new Clause would not have been tabled if the Opposition had not made a misery of the lives of those in charge of the Bill. Let us be realists. We all know how concessions are obtained, and this con cession was not obtained because of any effort by the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay). The Government tabled this Clause because the Opposition had tabled the one which follows it on the Order Paper, although it is true to say —and I am glad to say it—that the Government's proposal goes a bit beyond what we suggested in dealing with sub sidence—I never know which is the correct pronunciation of this word——

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): The Oxford Dictionary approves of both.

Sir H. Williams: I never went to Oxford; I went to a modern university, so that does not influence me. However the word is pronounced, we are glad to have this concession. The hon. Member for Wallsend knows very well that in 99.9 per cent. of these cases the coal has been gotten—I think that is the right phrase—from under the building. He must not run away with the idea that he and his hon. Friends have done anything to obtain this new Clause. There is a good Parliamentary phrase for them in this instance, which a Minister used many years ago, in referring to an Opposition, when he called them "dumb cattle." There is thus a Parliamentary precedent when I say that hon. Members opposite have been dumb cattle, with one notable and honourable exception, the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown). We welcome this new Clause; it is a great improvement, but it would not have been put into the Bill but for the efforts of the Opposition.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedule.—(DETERMINATION OF AMOUNT OF DEPRECIATION AND RECIPIENTS OF PAYMENTS.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this be the Schedule to the Bill."

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Higgs: There is one question that I want to raise on the Schedule, which deals with the method of calculating and making payments. As one who, professionally, may have a little to do with the matter I am not altogether disinterested. In other Measures of this kind provision has been made for payment to claimants of some amount towards the professional costs which they incur In this case, as we have explained—and I do not propose to go into that now—considerable professional costs may be incurred in employing mining engineers and others who are quite expensive people to engage. The costs may amount to almost as much as the compensation for a small measure of damage in respect of which a claim is made. Is it the intention of the Government to provide for the payment of the costs of those who, through no fault or obstinacy of their own, have to incur considerable professional expenses in order to recover perhaps only £30—because those are the important claims of which there will be the greatest number?

Mr. Bracken: Surely the Government are going to answer this question. Mining engineers are amply rewarded and, as I know to my own cost, hard to obtain and very expensive when they send in bills; but they are a mild and generous section of the community by comparison with lawyers. Surely some Minister can get up and give an assurance to my hon. Friend. We are helping the Government in every way. Surely we can have an assurance that these legal costs, which may mean nothing to rich firms but mean a lot to persons of small means, will in some sensible way be covered. There seems to be a sort of Council of State going on on the Government Front Bench, so I hope that one Minister will rise and give us an answer.

The Solicitor-General: There would be no place in the Schedule for such a provision, because the Schedule is simply designed to determine the amount of depreciation and the recipients' payments.


If the Committee look back to Clause 2, they will see that the Coal Board are under two alternative obligations. One is to carry out the repairs as soon as reasonably possible, and the other, if it thinks fit, to make a payment equal to the costs reasonably incurred by any other person in carrying out such repairs. I should have thought that the reasonable costs of obtaining expert advice would be included by those words. In other words, anyone who wanted to carry out the repairs would be entitled to claim the reasonable cost to which he is put in obtaining expert advice for the purpose of carrying out those repairs. As to the costs of any litigation in which an individual may be concerned, the county court would have power to order costs in the ordinary way if litigation ultimately has to decide the issue.

Sir H. Williams: I rise, not for the purpose of controversy, but for the purpose of obtaining information for myself. I have been trying to understand paragraph 7, but I must confess that I do not understand it. I do not know whether the Lord Advocate can explain it to me. It says "easement means servitude." I thought that in ordinary language it meant the exact opposite. Perhaps I could have legal advice as to what that does mean.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. John Wheatley): The reason "easement" means servitude is because "servitude" is a Scottish term which corresponds to "easement" in English. I cannot think of a more satisfactory explanation.

Mr. Bracken: May I ask whether the Lord Advocate had joined the Buch-manite movement? He has now told us that under the Socialist Government Scotland is under servitude. I agree with him.

The Lord Advocate: If I may reply to that remark, I would say that this is a term which goes back for many years and that it grew up in the era when the right hon. Gentleman's party ruled the destinies of Scotland.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered.

6.21 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
This is a pleasurable occasion for me. We have had some good times and some good humour in the Committee. There has been a little heat now and again. The right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East, and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken) and I are old antagonists. One has got used to his method of attack and has developed as a result of it, a certain line of defence. The Bill is, I think, generally welcomed in the House and it certainly is very much welcomed in those areas of the country where a good deal of hardship has been caused for many years to individuals as a result of subsidence.
From time to time the right hon. Member has done his very utmost to push hon. Friends of mine into making speeches and lengthening our discussions. They have had to exercise an enormous amount of self-discipline, which is the best discipline in the world and is better than any discipline imposed from the top. We are particularly indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) who, on this occasion. has really been the mouthpiece for the mining Members of the House. He has served them well. We have listened to the contributions which he has made with very great interest and respect, because of his wide knowledge and experience.
I should like to pay a compliment to the hon. Baronet who was a signatory to the Turner Committee's Report. During the discussions on the Bill he has made great contributions, based on the expert knowledge that he had as a member of that committee. We are grateful to him, too, for the ready way in which he has balanced the right hon. Gentleman and enabled us to get down to some serious discussion of the points at issue.
I said that the Bill is welcomed in the mining areas. My experience, and I suppose that of Members who go about mining areas, is that the miners who have produced the basic wealth of this nation usually live in the most dingy surroundings and shocking housing conditions. They go on working away, pulling at the very foundations of their own homes. They have done that, and it has brought


hardship many limes. Therefore the Bull is of especial value to them. I am sure that they will appreciate what it means.
It may well be that the Bill does not do all that many people want, but it is a sort of limited Bill. We wanted it to cover those who occupy or own small dwelling-houses, and that is what we have done. The Bill requires the Coal Board to do for the owners and occupiers of all small dwelling-houses what they are already doing for other properties for which they must accept statutory responsibility.
I am certain that the Coal Board—in fact, I think I can give this assurance on behalf of the Coal Board—will discharge their obligations on the properties which come within the Bill and for which they will now be responsible, with the same sympathetic consideration as they have shown in dealing with those other properties for which they have had responsibility in the past and in respect of which my hon. Friend the Member for Ince has paid some small tribute. The Bill will remove the main cause of difficulty and dispute in connection with subsidence claims in the past, as to whether the Coal Board were responsible for the damage and were liable to pay compensation. From now on there will be no doubt at all. Doubt is removed. The position of small dwelling-houses is clearly defined and there will be no further dispute whether or not liability falls upon the National Coal Board.
That brings me to the point: What are the properties covered? We have agreed that they should be those of a rateable value of £32 in England and £52 in Scotland. I said on the Second Reading that we had thought of a number of ways to define a dwelling-house and the type of dwelling-house that we wanted to cover. We might have taken the number of rooms or the cubic capacity, or the floor space, but by and large and looking at it all round we decided that the best way would be to take the rateable value. It is true that assessments are unequal in the country and that rateable value may not be a perfect method at this stage, but when the reassessment which is going on is completed it should bring this type of dwelling-house on to equality.
That means that in re-assessment there may be changes and that the type of house we want to cover might be put outside the scope of the Bill unless we raised that limit of £32 rateable value. We have therefore agreed to a provision in the Bill that will enable my right hon. Friend to make an order raising that limit if it is deemed desirable and right. I want again to give the assurance that I think I gave before on behalf of my right hon. Friend, that before he introduces any regulation dealing with this matter at all he will certainly consult local authorities, property owners' associations and the legal department of the National Union of Mineworkers, and indeed anybody who has an interest in this matter and who can give him advice.

Mr. Bracken: Even the miners themselves.

Mr. Robens: It is difficult to interview all the miners themselves and I am sure that they would be satisfied if we consulted their organisation. I am bound to make it clear that, in making the regulations, my right hon. Friend may do so on the basis of experience arising from reassessment and on the advice of local authorities.
The Bill now passes to another place and we hope that it will speedily reach the Statute Book. When it does so the National Coal Board will set to work, discharging not only their current liabilities but discharging also the accumulated liabilities of the industry which they took over on behalf of the nation and which are placed upon them by the Bill. I thank hon. Members very much in all parts of the House for the kindness and courtesy that they have shown during our Debates, which have been carried on upon a very good-humoured basis.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. Bracken: I must congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on the friendly remarks he has made about the Opposition's attitude to the Bill. We set ourselves to improve it—we had no aid from the other side—and I think, on the whole, that we have done so. The Parliamentary Secretary has described the Bill as limited. Of course, it is a limited Bill. It might even be described as a mean and unfair Bill, because lots of people who have a right to claim compensation are excluded by the Bill. I have hopes


that the Minister will one day be able to persuade those marble-hearted gentlemen who are responsible for Treasury policy to give him the opportunity he deserves, which is to offer adequate compensation to owners of houses suffering from subsidence—when we on this side will most heartily welcome the introduction of such a Bill. I know the right hon. Gentleman well—I worked with him in the war—and I am absolutely certain that if he had his way we should have a much more generous Bill, a Bill which would do justice to the many people affected by subsidence.
It has fallen to our lot to have to take the place of the mining Members. I am amazed by their silence and compliance. Above all, one of their most forcible advisers, the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams), has sat here mute.

Mr. Ronald Williams: I must permit myself the observation that if the right hon. Gentleman is going to give his cap and bells a shake, I hope he will give them a good shake.

Mr. Bracken: It is not my lot to shake anything. My lot is to protect the hon. Gentleman from Mr. Horner and others who feel that the mining Members have betrayed their trust, and I accept that view, too. As the Government have accepted most of our Amendments, it is quite ungracious of us to be too critical at this late stage of our discussions. The Minister assures us that in another place the many concessions made in the course of the Debate will be put into reasonably lucid English and later on will be returned to us, so that, as the lawyers say, there is a need for further and better opportunities and we have to see in cold print the fulfilment of the promises made to us by the right hon. Gentleman.
From the point of view of the Conservative Opposition, the Debate has in certain ways been a tragedy. Had we had the opportunity we should have offered fair compensation to the tens of thousands of persons who suffer from subsidence and are not referred to in the Bill. Obviously nobody from the other side of the House is going to pay us a tribute, so I myself propose to pay one to my hon. Friends. I think it will be generally agreed that we have greatly improved the Bill. We have helped the hon. Gentlemen opposite who sit for mining constituencies. I admire their

loyalty to the Government. They have been absolutely dumb and obedient under the orders of the Chief Whip, but miners are the most loyal people in the world and I think that their electors will forgive them, more especially when they know that we of the Opposition have done the work that they were commissioned to do.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. T. Brown: This is a very historic day for me inasmuch as it is now 31 years since I became an ardent advocate of compensation being paid for damage done by mining subsidence. It is historic in the sense that I have lived to see the day when our advocacy, propaganda and education have borne fruit and the fruit is being plucked from the tree by this Government.
A great deal of play has been made by the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken) about the dumbness of miners on this side of the House. It would be of interest to him if he took the trouble to ascertain the time, talent and energy devoted to the Bill by the National Union of Mineworkers. They gave evidence before the Turner Committee at considerable expense to themselves because they felt the time was coming when the things which they had advocated would be accomplished.
As I have said before, I welcome any assistance that we can get from the Opposition, but I should welcome it much more and with a more grateful heart if there were a little more sincerity about it. A great deal of play was made by the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch—I like to see him in the Chamber because he creates a hilarious spirit although from time to time we take strong exception to what he says—with the suggestion that the Bill has not had a good reception in the coalfields. I propose to read a letter which has come voluntarily from an institution which is not very sympathetic towards the Labour Government. Those on whose behalf it is written realise however that in this Measure there is a ray of hope for the people who have been shockingly treated by Governments in the past. The letter is dated 19th May. The address is, "Estate Offices, Warrington Road, Ashton-in-Makerfield." This is what the letter says:


Dear Mr. Brown.—As the President of the Ashton-inMakerfield Property Owners' and Ratepayers' Association, I have been asked by the Committee to express to you our most sincere thanks for the trouble you have taken on behalf of the owners of property who have, and still are, suffering loss owing to damage by mining subsidence. Personally, I realise that a great deal of research and investigations have been made by you in connection with the Bill which is now before the House. As a member of the Mining Subsidence Sub-Committee of the National Federation of Property Owners, I am fully conversant with the work involved in this sort of thing. It is very often difficult to get correct facts and a great deal of trouble to compile them in such a way that they are always handy for reference purposes. We have always followed the reports of your speeches with great interest and I can assure you that this is not a formal letter of thanks but a truly grateful expression of our appreciation of your efforts, the result of which, though not all that we would have liked, has (bearing in mind the present economic position of the country) been very satisfactory. Believe me to be, yours very truly, James J. Walsh.
There is an expression of appreciation from people who are not altogether sympathetic towards us. In that district which I tried to describe in my Second Reading speech, they realise that within this Measure there is a ray of hope which has been denied to them in years gone by.
The next letter is from the Abram Urban District Council. I will not read it, but it is as well that the right hon. Gentleman should understand that there is a great deal of interest being taken in the coalfields in this Measure.

Mr. Bracken: Naturally.

Mr. Brown: Yes, because hitherto they have been denied the right of claiming compensation for damage done through mining subsidence. I dislike intensely the right hon. Gentleman interfering in the manner he has done, although he paid a tribute to me a few moments ago. If he had been sitting where I have been sitting for the last 31 years, his approach to this question would be entirely different from what it is this evening. We on this side of the House welcome this Measure, and I express the hope that at a subsequent date a Measure more comprehensive than the one now passing through the House——

Mr. Bracken: That is what I have been saying.

Mr. Brown: That is what we are saying and doing and that is what we are expecting hon. Members opposite to support at

a subsequent date. I believe that our people in the mining districts realise that we have attempted to do something which will help them in their financial difficulties, despite the economic circumstances of this country. I want to ask the Minister if, when he drafts the regulations which he is empowered to do under Clause 14 of this Bill, he will make them as simple as the English language can be made, because hitherto many regulations brought before this House have not been easily understood by the man in the street. I have fought for this for years and I am still an ardent advocate of the simplification of regulations.
In conclusion, as one who lives in one of these districts, effected by mining subsidence, I welcome the Bill and wish it Goodspeed in its passage through another place.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. Raikes: In this House we always like to hear the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) speaking on mining and although his "fan mail" which he read to us is a little on the lukewarm side, nevertheless it bears out that this Measure, whatever it may lack, is at any rate one which, after amendment, will probably do a great deal more good than harm in the areas it covers.
There is only one thing I regret in what the hon. Member for Ince said. He accused us rather lightly of insincerity. On this side of the House it is our duty, whenever any Measure is brought before the House, not only to scrutinise it but to try to improve it. I grant you, Mr. Speaker, that we always have a little bit of fun and games, when we are discussing a Measure of this character. It is not a bad thing, even when matters are of great import, that now and again we should have a little lightness brought into our discussions. Nevertheless, on this side of the House we have not only tried to improve this Bill but we have succeeded in doing so, and we have not done it through insincere motives. We have done it because we believe in making the Bill better. If we had wanted to be merely obstructive, we could have been, but that is not our policy.
If the right hon. Gentleman is still Minister of Fuel and Power, I think in a comparatively short time he will find


it necessary to bring in further legislation to implement more completely the Turner Report. Perhaps it is more likely, as matters advance, that such legislation will be brought in by those who are now on this side of the House. If it is, we shall not accuse of insincerity those who have felt unable to bring in more far-reaching legislation today should they try to improve the legislation which we bring in.
Now that we are facing the new era of nationalisation for the coal industry, good or bad, I feel we have to look ahead, to build for the future, and in so far as this Measure carries us a stage further in fairness to a section of the community which is respected on all sides of the House, it is welcome. I regret, however, that the Minister has felt bound to adhere to the date 1947, because I believe he will find a considerable number of anomalies as between damage which arose during the war period and that seen before 1947. He has prevented any alteration of date backwards to 1941, which is the year I should have liked. However in regard to the wider question, he is not debarred at a later stage from bringing forward further legislation.
We willingly wish the Minister and the mining Members of Parliament good fortune in any advantage this Measure may bring to their constituents, and we are proud that we have had an opportunity, from which hon. Members sitting behind the Minister have been debarred——

Mr. Bracken: Gagged.

Mr. Raikes: I will not get controversial on this Third Reading—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I could. We all know quite well that when the Government of the day produce a Bill, particularly when they feel a little pressed for time and the Chief Whip is not always smiling to the extent that he is smiling at the moment, hon. Members have not the same scope for moving Amendments to improve that Bill as have the Opposition. We have done our duty. We thank the Minister for meeting us when we have produced Amendments which helped. We are glad the Minister did not take the line, which is such a mistake, that if a thing comes from the other side it should not be touched. He has shown a certain generosity and we wish to show equal generosity in giving our blessing to this Bill tonight.

6.48 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I have not yet taken part in the Debates on this Measure because I am in the happy position of having my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) as a constituent. He knows my constituency almost better than I do, having lived there for so long, and he certainly knows this subject. I welcome this Bill as a beginning, and I am wondering, if the Tory Party were in power, whether they would give us even this small beginning. I doubt it very much, and I have been here much longer than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken). Let me say one or two things in favour of this Measure——

Mr. Bracken: Hear, hear.

Mr. Davies: Mr. Speaker, I get rather nervous when the right hon. Gentleman interjects in that way and I would like your assistance so that I may proceed with my speech. What I wanted to say was this: I know a little about the subsidence problem because I was born in a coalfield. Then, I must have actually worked a seam that made my own house metaphorically drunk overnight.

Mr. Bracken: Drunk?

Mr. Davies: Yes, not the householders, but the houses, becoming drunk with subsidence. I suppose that the right hon. Gentleman knows so little about mining that he has never heard that expression before. I welcome the Bill, therefore, as a beginning, because I am sure that it will be followed in the future by something more generous.
I represent one of the oldest coalmining areas in the Kingdom and I can assure the present Minister and any future Government that the Bill will be accepted only as a beginning. In my constituency we have the ugly situation of mining subsidence occurring under a stream, so that in time of heavy rains the whole neighbourhood is flooded; but that issue, of course, is not within the scope of the Bill.
I have been very interested by the solicitude of the Tory Opposition for the miners during these proceedings. How generous have been their words; but I have been here long enough to remember something quite different about the Tory Party, although I must not revert to that now.
An hon. Member opposite raised the question of the repair of houses by the Coal Board. When I was a miner in the Rhondda—and I am sure that Members now representing that area will support me—I owned my own house and it suffered severely from subsidence. Some of the coalmining companies, however, were much more kindly disposed towards repairing property than others, but one thing was universal, namely, that when subsidence affected the homes of the managers and under-managers of the collieries, theirs were always repaired forthwith. In fact, I am sure now that the Coal Board will repair the houses of their officials before any others.
The Bill is a very simple Measure. It is not a very generous one, and I wish that it were more so. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has already been congratulated upon his work during its passage through the House. I am in the unique position of remembering my hon. Friend when he was a youngster, and I most certainly add my congratulations on his achievement in assisting the conduct of the Bill through its various stages.
The hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller), whom I see on the Front Bench opposite, knows a little about subsidence. He knows the little township of Aspull, and he must have seen the havoc which can be wrought by mining operations. I am sure that in his heart he will welcome a Bill of this kind, because it lays down the principle which removes the repair of property damaged by subsidence from the realm of charity to which it has in some cases been relegated. Hon. Members who represent constituencies in South Wales will bear me out when I say how deep a social problem this question of subsidence can become. I know miners who mortgaged their property in order to provide higher education for their children. In some cases however, subsidence damage arose and as a result the education of the children was marred.
I have seen small Measures which have begun in the House that have been expanded into much more important Acts of Parliament later. When I first came into the House there were not many of our social services in existence. I remember the time when I moved the very first Motion in favour of a widows' pension of

10s. a week—that was in 1922. Incidentally, all the Tory Party except one voted against it, but we have made much progress since.

Mr. Speaker: We are discussing the Third Reading of a Bill. The hon. Member must confine his remarks to what is contained in the Bill.

Mr. Davies: I was about to return, Mr. Speaker, to subsidence. As I said, I congratulate the Government and the Tory Party on their support of the Bill. The generosity of hon. Members opposite has on this occasion known no bounds; and I would have been annoyed at their delaying performances had I not myself been guilty, whilst in opposition, of acting similarly many years ago.

6.55 p.m.

Colonel Lancaster: As one who, possibly, has been responsible for more subsidence than anyone else in the House, perhaps I may say a word in favour of the Bill. If it has done nothing else, it has cleared what for many years has been a very vexed problem. It is assumed by a good many hon. Members opposite that subsidence was the responsibility of the coal owners. Sometimes it was; in the great majority of cases, of course, it was the responsibility of the surface owner, the owner of the mineral property. It was very difficult for the House at any time before the minerals became the property of the nation to introduce a Bill of this kind which could in any way be comprehensive.
The Bill is a very small Measure. It has gone only a very little way to deal with this very considerable problem, but it has at any rate done that. I think that all hon. Members who have taken part in the progress of the Bill can congratulate themselves and in some small measure can congratulate the Government. As has been said by my hon. and right hon. Friends and also by hon. Members opposite, we must hope that at a later stage a more comprehensive Measure will be put before the House, for the present Bill touches only the fringe of the problem and undoubtedly we have a long way to go before the issue is finally settled. We have, however, made a start, which is all for the good, and I should like to add my small meed of praise of what has been done on this occasion.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. S. O. Davies: I should like to say a few words because during the Second Reading Debate I was perhaps severely critical of the Bill. I say with all sincerity that I am extremely glad that the Bill will soon be on the Statute Book as a recognition of the very serious social problem of subsidence.
The Opposition must forgive me if I find it difficult to regard anything which they have said during the passage of the Bill as expressing a profound or revolutionary change of heart. I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) who reminded the House of something which was vividly implanted in my memory—the throwing out during the last 30 years of no fewer than eight Bills, four of which had been promoted by mining Members. When those Bills were placed before the House, we in the coalfields had hopes that some recognition of this great evil would be shown by the Governments of the day. No such recognition, however, was made—none whatever.
We must be forgiven, therefore, if at this time of our lives we of the Government and of our great movement feel that we have succeeded in snatching a single brand from the burning on the benches opposite. The right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christ-church (Mr. Bracken) has not taken advantage of the opportunity to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Ince on why the Tories threw out no fewer than eight Bills in the last 30 years. No answer has been given by any hon. or right hon. Gentleman opposite. I am very pleased, at any rate, that at long last recognition of the problem of subsidence has been made.
The Minister and other Members of the Government will know that we regard the Bill—we cannot do otherwise—as being a decent, honest, healthy beginning in grappling with the evil of subsidence. I have every confidence that as the Government obtain more information, and as a greater understanding is reached by everyone of the true extent of human misery which the problem entails, we shall in the not too remote future see a more comprehensive Measure presented. I shall be expecting the same cheering, cheery disposition on the part of the right hon. Member for

Bournemouth when another comprehensive Bill is submitted to the House, or, should a miracle happen in this country and the present Opposition become the Government of the country, we shall be living in more doubtful anticipation than we have been for a good while.

Mr. Bracken: The hon. Member will be having a well-earned retirement.

Mr. Davies: We say "good luck" to this Bill, and I am certain that, as information comes to the Government, they will make the same response as they have done in bringing forward this Bill.

7.0 p.m.

Miss Irene Ward: I always think it is an extremely satisfactory Parliamentary occasion when both sides of the House co-operate in placing a sound Measure on the Statute Book, and I want to take this opportunity, first, of welcoming the Bill, and, secondly, of paying a tribute to all those hon. Members who sit for mining constituencies for the work they have done in bringing this question to the notice of the country as a whole. I do this in a very whole-hearted fashion. I come from the county of Northumberland, which has a great history of mining. I have always felt, sitting for a constituency in Northumberland, that I could view the mining community from a quite impartial position. Sometimes I thought the coal owners were wrong, and I quite often said so, and sometimes I thought the miners were wrong, and I quite often said so.
I like in this great House of Commons, when opportunity arises, to say to those who have fought for what I think is a thoroughly good cause that I am glad that they are now to see the results of the battles that they have fought for so long. I am glad my party have had a chance of putting forward certain constructive Amendments, and I also thank the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary for the spirit in which they accepted those Amendments. Like everyone else, I hope that when this Bill gets on the Statute Book it will do a great deal to help those who indeed need assistance from the House of Commons to achieve what, after all, are their legitimate rights.
There is no need on an occasion of this kind to make a long speech, but I


know there will be many people in the country who will welcome this Bill and who will obtain benefit from it, and I also hope that in the future we shall have a more comprehensive Measure. It is a great pleasure to have been in the House of Commons when this Bill was introduced, and I am delighted that everyone is so pleased that it will be placed on the Statute Book.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. Slater: During the progress of this Bill through the Committee stage and up to the present I have been wondering whether the Opposition, who sought to bring comparisons to bear upon the legislative approach of the Minister in this Bill, have ever lived in a mining community where subsidence has been a dominant factor. I listened most attentively during the Committee stage and I heard one hon. Member opposite make a statement to the effect that subsidence had presented itself immediately following the sinking of a shaft in the pit and had been in process for a period of six months. Anyone who has served in the mining industry knows that in a period of six months very little progress is made in any operation in a pit.
I think it would be as well, if those on the Opposition benches want to give themselves credit, if they now consider themselves as the miner's champions and want some information relative to subsidence that they should go into the mining areas. If they did that, they would see that the approach of past Governments, to which they have been attached and in which they were very insincere at the time when forms of nationalisation were sought to be introduced, was wrong and that they ought to have given those Measures their support. This Measure has had to come through nationalisation, which was introduced by a Labour Government.
A Measure has been introduced whereby people in the mining areas can be assisted when the houses in which they live are damaged by subsidence. In many instances, prior to nationalisation, those houses were owned by private companies. Mention has been made of the rateable value of £32, but in Durham a rateable value of £32 would be considered appropriate to a mansion and not a small dwelling-house. With other hon.

Members who represent mining constituencies, I am very grateful for this Measure and we hope that in time a more comprehensive Measure will be introduced whereby people living in the mining areas may be given further consideration.

7.8 p.m.

Sir H. Williams: I am not a coal owner and never have been, I am not a miner and not a property owner, but I am interested in this problem because for many years I was interested in a wide area in South Staffordshire where the problem was very serious. I have seen it in different forms. I remember streets on fire because the coal came near the surface. I have seen all these problems and I very much resented the tone of several hon. Members opposite who have spoken in this Debate. On the lips of every one of them has been the word "insincerity," I think it is very near the edge of an improper Parliamentary phrase to accuse hon. Members of being insincere when they have spoken in support of certain Amendments which, if the Government had accepted them, would have created the more extensive Measure about which hon. Members opposite talked.
The insincerity, surely, has not been with us, but with those who supported the Minister against the Amendments which would have given them a Measure they desired. That ought to be put quite plainly. We have had what I call "absent friends" speaking on the Third Reading. They took no part on the Committee Stage and did nothing to improve the Bill because, I presume, they were told to be quiet, but it ill becomes them on the Third Reading to accuse us of insincerity. I hope we shall not have that attitude again. It is cheap and nasty and shows a good deal of insincerity itself.

Mr. S. O. Davies: It depends where it comes from.

Sir H. Williams: It does not matter where it comes from. If I moved an Amendment which would improve the Bill and the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. O. Davies) opposed it, who is insincere? Surely I would be sincere and he would be insincere because he did not support it, as he was afraid of disciplinary action which, in the Labour Party, is very rigid. In our party we are always free to express an opinion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes, and free to vote.

Mr. R. Williams: On a point of order. Will you give me some guidance, Mr. Speaker, whether the disciplinary forces which may or may not come into operation in the Conservative Party can be related to any particular part of the Third Reading of this Bill?

Mr. Speaker: I was wondering when the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) was speaking about an Amendment and if it was an Amendment which was rejected, because if so it cannot be talked about on the Third Reading of the Bill.

Sir H. Williams: I quite agree, Mr. Speaker, I know the rigid rules which apply to debate on the Third Reading. One can only talk about what is in the Bill and not about what ought to be in the Bill. But as every speech from the other side of the House has been about what hon. Members wish to be in the Bill, I thought it was not quite disorderly for me to comment on the fact. Apparently everyone who has spoken in that sense has been out of order, and I have been wondering for quite a time whether they would be pulled up.
This Bill will certainly improve the situation, and for that reason, like everyone else, I welcome it. It would not have been improved in the way it has been and in the way in which I understand it is likely to be improved, but for vigorous action taken by many Members on this side of the House who thought that those concerned should receive far more generous terms than they will receive as the Bill stands. I hope that when the Lords Amendments come back we shall be able to welcome some great improvements. I conclude by repeating that it is rather offensive and disgusting for people to talk of insincerity when they have taken no part in improving the Bill.

7.12 p.m.

Miss Jennie Lee: The hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) referred with some pride to the freedom which exists inside the Conservative Party. May I remind him that that freedom no doubt extended to it being open either to his party or to himself at any time in the last 10, 20, 30 or 40 years, to have brought in even as modest a Measure as this Bill on behalf of the miners? So I do not think he should play that card too strongly.
I was at a wedding earlier today and therefore arrived properly attuned to the slightly festive atmosphere of the House. In fact, a phrase which comes to mind on the Third Reading of a Bill of this kind as well as that other occasion is, "For better or for worse." We have now reached a stage where there is nothing much to be gained by quarrelling any more. No further Amendments can be made. We cannot get out of it whether we like it or not; it is just about to happen.

Mr. Bracken: Hear, hear.

Miss Lee: I would say that even the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken) looks quite attractive this afternoon. There have been other occasions in our earlier consideration of this Bill when I am afraid we could not have referred to him in those terms. One hon. Member opposite whom we ought to thank is the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth). He not only did very great and hard work upon the Turner Committee itself with all the other members, but most of us who are deeply concerned about every word and comma of this Bill know that he has really worked terrifically hard and given his best and most serious services during our consideration of this Bill.
I know that neither you, Mr. Speaker, nor responsible people outside this House have the slightest misunderstanding about what my miner colleagues have been doing while this Bill has been before the House. We wanted the baby born, and we have been most anxious lest if we indulged ourselves or even did something we might conceive to be useful, the net result might have been no Bill. No one has claimed that the Bill is all we want. I feel so friendly today that I am willing to go in for a spot of coalition. I am willing to suggest that if by any dire misfortune to the country, we should have a Tory Government after the next election, both sides of the House might agree to get together and exert pressure on the Government to see that the Turner Report is fully implemented. If, as is much more likely, this side of the House continues to have the responsibility to govern, I am quite willing to invite hon. Members to unite with us in applying pressure, if that should be necessary, to


make quite sure that we treat this Bill as a first stage and then proceed fully to implement the Report.
There is one party to this Bill outside this House which deserves a word of thanks. I refer to the Coal Board. The hon. and gallant Member for Fylde, South (Colonel Lancaster) has, I notice, been deeply troubled in his conscience, which has several times led him to make the point that it was not really the mining operator but the mineral owner who was responsible for past wrongs that were left unrighted. We shall not quarrel with him about that, but I would at least say, now that we have the Coal Board, that one of the great blessings and advantages that flow from it is that we are able to bring forward Measures of this kind.
I do not know whether the practice of the Coal Board in dealing with housing repairs arising from subsidence in my Division is universal throughout Great Britain. I should like to know; it would be worth while to find out. So far as Cannock Chase is concerned the local councils are already feeling an immense advantage in the co-operation of the Coal Board, especially in that very often they act according to the spirit of fair play and not just in accordance with the strict measure of the law.
It is proper that we as a House of Commons should try to make this Bill as perfect as possible, but I am also optimistically looking forward to real cooperation with the Coal Board. I believe that it will do not only a competent job but a generous one. Those of us who have lived a great deal with this problem are modestly happy that we should have reached this stage. We know that in the last few years there has been less blood on the coal than there has ever been before. Because of a Bill of this nature we know that there are also to be fewer tears on the coal than before.

7.18 p.m.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: The hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) has rather disarmed me. I had thought of saying some less kind things about the Government than it is now possible to say in view of what she has said. Perhaps I might be allowed to apologise for not being here when the new Clause dealing with onus of proof

was moved. That has effected a great improvement and will go some way to meet the criticism which we on this side of the House have very fairly put forward. Perhaps I might be allowed to say also how sorry I am that the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar) is not here. He has taken an immense interest in this matter, and I am quite sure that his enforced absence from these Debates will be a matter of great grievance to him. I know that, through his having been a colleague on the Turner Committee and in view of the terms of the Bill itself.
I do not wish to go into the details of the Bill again. We have criticised them and I am afraid there are still a large number of points on which it is deserving of criticism. I have still some faint hope that before the Bill leaves Parliament the Government may see the error of inserting the £32 limit. Perhaps I might say to the hon. Member for Cannock that this afternoon's proceedings are not altogether final. I do not suggest that another place has a resemblance to a divorce court, but it can at all events upset some decisions made here so far as this Parliament is concerned. I hope that the Government may see their way to give way on the £32 limit. I am sure they will be wise to do so.
This Bill does—I will not use the word "tend"—purport to do something which all of us think ought to be done to secure a measure of compensation for those who are working in the coalfields. In a way I think it much more important than a mere question of paying out cash. The amount of cash involved is not important. What is important is the psychological reaction—to use a rather pompous term—of those who are living with the damage which subsidence is causing all the time.
I am afraid that this Bill, when it is put into practice will be found to fall very far short of what is expected by those who are living in the coalfields, and I think it right even at this late stage to give that warning to the Government; but I am sure that now we have gone a little way along the path it will be impossible to draw back and that this Bill will necessarily be the precursor of further Bills; and that the time will come when this problem will be dealt with fully and in a way which will give satisfaction.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. Blyton: May I join in the conviviality? I cannot be charged with not speaking on this Bill. I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Miss Irene Ward). She praised the miners and the miners' M.P.s. I am very pleased at her sudden conversion, because in the election she said of the miners:
If the miners had done a fair day's work for a fair day's pay, we should not have required opencast coals.
And she said:
They don't want to do this, and so they take a day off. … The Socialists have cossetted the miners at the expense of the rest of the community.
That was a speech made by the hon. Lady at a place called Bygate Lane School in her constituency.

Miss Ward: If the hon. Member will forgive me, I think I did say, in the few remarks which I addressed to the House this afternoon, that I was always perfectly outspoken both against the coal owners and against the miners, and for the coal owners and for the miners. I think that that is quite a reasonable approach to their many problems.

Mr. Blyton: I am very pleased at the conversion of the hon. Lady and I hope that the attacks on the miners will not be persisted in on these lines and that then the hon. Lady will congratulate them.
I also listened to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth, East, and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken). I always enjoy listening to him in the House because he brings a happy atmosphere, although he says some very naughty things at times. I can assure him that he need not try to protect us from Arthur Horner and the miners' union because the National Union of Mineworkers are supporting this Bill, and therefore we have nothing to be afraid of in that direction. I also congratulate the right hon. Member on his gallant attempt to bait the miners' M.P.s in the Debate last week. Although he was not successful, he undoubtedly made a gallant attempt, and I hope it will be an object lesson to him in future Debates not to try that on a second time, for fear it redounds against him.

Mr. Bracken: May I interrupt the hon. Member? There has been grievous sub-

sidence in the mining areas, but the biggest subsidence that I have ever known is among the mining Members in this present House of Commons.

Mr. Blyton: The right hon. Member can have his joke and rest assured that the miners' M.P.s are highly delighted about this Bill, because for the first time it is laid down by statute that the nation as a whole has some obligation to the mining community whose property is destroyed.
The £32 rateable value house mentioned in this Bill represents, in Northumberland and Durham, a good-sized mansion and I am satisfied that all the landlords in Durham who support the Tory Party are delighted that this Bill has been brought forward to protect them against mining subsidence. In the old days we had to face the problem that people did not pursue even their lawful rights because they could not employ lawyers and solicitors, valuers and surveyors. The colliery companies would not show them plans of where the coal had been extracted under houses, and many people suffered damage to their property because the onus was on them, and they got nothing. I should like hon. Members opposite to know that the Amendment on the Order Paper today has resulted from pressure from miners' M.P.s on this side of the House. It ought to be recognised that we have been pressing for this Amendment when the right hon. Gentleman opposite was baiting us. I welcome the Bull and hope that the right hon. Member for Bournemouth will be here next time when we implement fully the Turner Report.

Mr. Bracken: Yes, but on the other side of the House.

7.26 p.m.

Colonel Clarke: I would ask the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) why, if the Amendment he referred to—which I think is the new Clause—was the work of miners behind the scenes, it was not put on the Order Paper before the Debate the other day? It seems to me very suspicious that it appears immediately above that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), and in almost exactly the same words as his.
I feel that the hon. Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) and other hon. Members have not been altogether fair to the Tory Party in saying that they have never done any constructive work to ameliorate the incidence of subsidence. I would take her mind back to the Private Members' Bill of 1939 on which I spoke. I would remind hon. Members if they have forgotten—and I should not have remembered had I not looked it up in the OFFICIAL REPORT—that I was the last Member of the Conservative National Government who spoke in that Debate. I said we were quite prepared to accept that Bill provided the part of it concerning local authorities was cut out.
That Bill did not only refer to the class of house included in this Bill but to local authority property as well; which this Bill does not, except as regards council houses. On that occasion I said on behalf of my colleagues that we were ready to accept the Bill if the second part regarding local authorities was cut out and that that part was contrary to the recommendations of the Blanesborough Report. That was the only Government Report we had to go on at that time. In this Bill we have had the excellent Turner Report which is much better than the Blanesborough Report.
Actually that was not accepted, but I did not vote on that Bill. At a later stage the promoters did withdraw the part of the Bill concerning local authority houses and it would have become law had it not been for the war. So it is not altogether fair to say that none of us on this side of the House did anything.

Mr. Oliver: Was not the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposed in principle to the Bill, and did not——

Mr. Speaker: Do not let us go back too far. Let us discuss this Bill.

Colonel Clarke: I must not pursue that. I conclude by saying that I welcome the Bill, as far as it goes. I wish that it was wider, if only for the reason that it would then be easier to work. In its constricted form it will not be too easy. For that reason, I believe that it will have to be widened before very long.
Finally, I support what was said by the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown)

about simplicity. We want people to understand this Bill. In the past many people have not understood what rights they have had. Lots of them had many rights which they did not use because they could not understand the position. I make a final appeal to the Minister that if any other alterations are made in this Bill they shall be designed to help towards simplicity, and that in any orders he makes the utmost simplicity should be attempted and attained.

7.31 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Williams: I rise at this stage for two reasons. The first is to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on having made a start. This is the first time in the history of this country that an effort has been made to deal with this vitally important subject. I heartily congratulate them and I add to that congratulation the fact that every miners' representative in this House equally enthusiastically congratulates them upon the work which they have done in bringing forward this Bill.
Having said that, I proceed to my second point, which is to ask a favour of the Minister. I ask him to be kind to the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken) and those on the benches behind him, because I have it in my heart to commiserate with them in the terrible circumstances in which they find themselves in relation to this Bill. It is a fact that we in this House who enjoy the observations of the right hon. Gentleman so much can react to his chiding without losing our tempers and without being in the least concerned, because we know that he is only acting the part of a buffoon.
But in the country it may be rather different, because we cannot always be present in our constituencies to explain in detail to our constituents that really the attitude of the Conservative Party towards this Bill, and towards the events which preceded it, can, with care, be explained away. We cannot always be there to do that. In our absence our constituents might very well think that the observations of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends to the effect that they are the friends of the miners in relation to this Bill, should be treated with derision. Since it is clear that that


will be so in the country, I beg my right hon. Friend, in his observations, to take those facts into account. I put it to the Minister that it is not necessary for him to hit the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends as hard as they deserve.
Throughout the proceedings leading to this stage of the Bill, it is true that we who are proud to represent the mining areas have adopted certain tactics. We have behaved in a certain way. Again, I would say, as I am feeling very friendly to the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch this evening, that we are responsible to our own constituents. We are not responsible to those to whom the right hon. Gentleman is answerable. Consequently, when we meet the miners and talk to them about subsidence, they remember the great work which has been done over many years by my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown). In smaller measure, they occasionally in their kindness of heart refer to the work for which I am proud to say that I have been responsible. I say that in all modesty. They will not judge our contributions to this Bill by the observations put forward by the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
In fact, all that it is necessary for us to do in our constituencies is to say what the right hon. Gentleman opposite said on the Third Reading of this Bill. I can assure him that we need merely quote the words which he has used and perhaps the hoots of derision will be heard even among the coal pits and slag heaps of the constituency which he represents so brilliantly. I am really and sincerely proud to add my few comments in support of this Measure, which is the beginning of great things in dealing with the problem of subsidence. I hold the right hon. Gentleman opposite to this: nobody has stated more clearly than he has, that he wants more than this Bill gives.

Mr. Bracken: Hear, hear.

Mr. Williams: It is important that he should remember that at the right time. It is a matter to which we shall refer at a later stage. I hope that if my right hon. Friend forgets everything else I have said, he will remember that I beg him to be kind to the right hon. Gentleman opposite.

Mr. Bracken: I hope that Mr. Horner will be kind to the hon. Gentleman.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: Coming as I do from a mining area in North Staffordshire which has some 24,000 miners, and knowing that the Government were most anxious to help in this problem which has largely affected working class dwellings, it would be ungracious of me not to say a word of thanks. For this purpose, I also represent my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) and Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross). For many years this has been a difficult human problem in the lives of ordinary working men and women. We all think that it is a very good idea that a great number of houses should be built. Some of us think that it is good that the local authorities should provide houses for rent; but there is nothing in the philosophy of hon. Gentlemen on either side of the House against the idea that a man and his family should own their own house if at all possible.
As a working man, I have seen great good come from the thrifty endeavours of men who have got together little homes with gardens where they have some security. But much heartburning has been caused when men and women, having worked hard for many years to acquire a little property, have been called upon a few weeks later to pay £100 or £150 to make good what they thought was a perfectly sound house. We often hear on other occasions about the widow and the small shareholder in companies. Many people of limited means have suffered many anxious hours and loss of sleep because of the difficulty of establishing their rights.
For example, in the old coal fields from which some of us come, there might have been differing conditions arising from the separate ownership of contiguous collieries. The question whose responsibility it was to repair a certain house was a matter of high technical difficulty. Some people living in the margin of one colliery, and possibly with some kind of interest in or association with a neighbouring colliery, where totally different conditions obtained, having acquired then-houses without much technical knowledge of what was being done, suddenly found themselves in this jam. It is a matter of


great advantage to these people to realise that, even within the limited terms of this Bill, something is now being done for them.
We recognise that the National Coal Board, which is trying to put the industry upon a sound working basis, obviously could not saddle themselves with all the large-scale responsibilities which some people would have liked to put upon them. In mining areas, such as that which I represent, there is widespread damage, and even town halls and public buildings of every sort have had to be patched up at great public expense. If anything can be done by preventive means in the construction of houses to avoid, at a later stage in their life, that development of damage and inconvenience from subsidence, I think it should be a matter for research, and that the Coal Board and the Government should work together with the local authorities to make the best information and advice available to those people who, perforce, because there is no other land available, have to build upon this land.
I welcome the Bill, and I hope that it will be the forerunner of another when, in happier times, the National Coal Board will be able to meet this problem—and not the National Coal Board alone, for I think that there is a Governmental and State responsibility in this matter—so that something shall be done in co-operation to provide justice for so many people and local authorities.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee), who spoke a short while ago, referred to the festive atmosphere which had prevailed this afternoon, and she helped to make it still more festive by her own speech. May I now express my own appreciation of today's Debate. The right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken) has played a large part in our discussions, both in the Committee stage and since, and he has paid so handsome a tribute to himself for his spendid work that I really do not think I should say any more about him. I confess that sometimes during the Committee stage, I thought our great objective of compensation for subsidence was being obscured a little, and I confess that, if anyone could have found a way of making the right

hon. Gentleman subside, he would have deserved generous compensation. The right hon. Gentleman has helped us very much, and I am grateful to him. The atmosphere we have had this afternoon shows that everybody wants this Bill to go through.
The right hon. Gentleman said it was a mean and unfair Bill, dictated by the marble-hearted tyrants of the Treasury, and he was good enough to say that, if I had been left to myself, I should have brought in a much better Bill. This is the best Bill we could hope to get in present circumstances, and this is the most generous way in which we can deal with this problem in our present national economic situation. Many of my hon. Friends and some hon. Members opposite have expressed the hope that there will soon be another Bill. Speaking personally, so do I. The subject needs a lot more study, and I am going to start the study. It will not be possible to bring in another Bill until the general economic position of the country improves. It is improving, and, therefore, I harbour a certain hope that another Bill will in due course come along.
In the meantime, we have this Bill, and what has been said by my hon. Friends behind me has shown that I was correct in what I said about the Bill on Second Reading. While it is a limited Bill, it is an important Bill, and it has received in the mining areas the response for which I had hoped. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Garston (Mr. Raikes) for what he said about the Government's attitude to the Bill, and we are also grateful for all the suggestions which have been made from all quarters. I wish we had done even more.
The hon. Baronet the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), spoke of the £32 limit. I should like to raise it, but to do so would really change the character of the Bill. We did consult the local authority associations, the national property associations and everybody we could find, on the point whether there were classes of property which ought to be brought within the scope of what we are trying to do. We could get no evidence except the evidence brought by the hon. Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts), and, in regard to the cases he mentioned, I have already explained why I am afraid that we could not deal with


them in this Bill. It would only have created anomalies elsewhere, and I am afraid that that matter will have to be dealt with in the next Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Edward Davies), spoke of preventive work being done by the National Coal Board. I think that that is very important, and I hope that the National Coal Board will work closely with local authorities, with building contractors and town planning authorities in doing all the preventive work that can be done. I think there is a great future in it. As the Turner Committee said, prevention is better than cure, and if they can be given some financial inducement, we shall certainly get results. It was thought in 1927 by the Royal Commission which sat at that time that we were on the eve of an epoch of progress of real prevention, but it was not true then, though, after all the technical work carried out at that time, we may be said today to be on the eve of an epoch in which results may be seen.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), who has helped us very much all the way through, and especially with the new Clause which has been added today, asked us to make the regulations as simple as they could be and to frame them in plain English. We will try to make them in plain English, but, of course, regulations must be documents that will stand up to legal interpretation. However, I make this pledge. Whether the English in the regulations be plain or not, we will try to produce some explanatory leaflets which will help the people in the mining areas really to understand what the regulations mean and what they themselves have to do. I hope my hon. Friend will accept that pledge.
As the Bill has been about to be read for the Third time, a few bouquets have been thrown in all directions, and, even at the risk of repeating what some hon. Members have said, holding the office which I do hold, I must say a few additional words. I must first pay tribute to the pioneers of the Bill between the two wars, to the National Union of Mine-workers for the work they have done for many years on this subject, to my pre-

decessors who appointed the Turner Committee, to the Turner Committee itself and all its members, to the hon. Baronet the Member for Hendon, South, who has always shown such a great interest and has done a great deal of work, to my hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Dagger), who is regrettably absent owing to illness, from which we all hope he will soon recover. There is also my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Boardman), who has also done a great deal of work on this subject.
I should also like, if I may, and I do not know if it is permitted or not, to pay a tribute to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who has done an extraordinary amount of preparatory work for this Bill. I think his work has had a great deal to do in helping to get this Bill through the House. I must also join with my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock in her tribute to the National Coal Board. Under this Bill, they are obliged to accept new and heavy obligations, and they are under statute obliged to pay their way. This new obligation is an open-ended obligation, because they may have a much larger problem than they have estimated it to be. Throughout our discussions, they have taken up an enlightened and generous attitude in dealing with local authorities and property owners to whom they have obligations, and we can rely on them in future.
I would also join with the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward) in the generous words which she used about my hon. Friends on this side of the House. They have lived with this situation for many years, but they have had the wisdom to accept a limited Bill when they wanted something more. They have shown great patience and resolution. As hon. Members on all sides have said, this Bill has been easier to bring in because the National Coal Board was set up three years ago. The Bill is, in truth, a by-product of nationalisation. It is one more step in social justice to the miners and their wives—one more step, an important step but not the last.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time; and passed.

Orders of the Day — MAINTENANCE ORDERS BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

7.50 p.m.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. John Wheatley): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The purpose of this Bill is a simple one, namely, to enable certain maintenance orders to be made and enforced throughout the United Kingdom. Its object is to close certain gaps in our legal procedure which at present give rise to hardship and social injustice to wives, mothers and children, and at the same time provide escapes for irresponsible husbands and fathers.
Broadly speaking, the Bill deals with three types of court orders which, for convenience, I may describe by the generic terms of wife maintenance orders, affiliation orders, and child maintenance orders. The Bill applies to England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and, as the existing law in each of these countries is different, the machinery set up under the Bill to give effect to its purpose is necessarily somewhat complicated. I do not propose to deal in detail with the complicated machinery. I trust that the House will be satisfied with an explanation of the general principles now during Second Reading, leaving the more detailed examination of the machinery to later stages.
Before enunciating the general principles of the Bill I think it may be for the convenience of the House if I illustrate the difficulties which arise under the existing law and which call for the remedies we propose. In wife maintenance cases the court in England which has the jurisdiction is the court where the marital offence was committed, or, by a recent enactment, the court where either the husband or the wife resides. In Scotland in all these classes of cases the court which has jurisdiction at present is the court where the defender resides. Thus, if a husband deserts his wife in Scotland and comes to England his wife cannot sue him in the Scottish courts because he is not resident there, but must, if she wishes to pursue her rights in court, establish residence in England and raise her action there, albeit all the relevant evidence is in Scotland. Apart altogether from the prohibi-

tion which the cost may create, the trouble and inconvenience are often deterrents
In affiliation cases the position is equally unsatisfactory. In England the court which has jurisdiction is the court where the mother resides. In Scotland it is the court where the defender resides which alone has jurisdiction. Accordingly if a man bairns a lassie in Scotland and flees to England the girl cannot sue him in the English courts unless she comes to England to reside. Nor can she sue him in Scotland in the Scottish courts because the defender is not resident there. A further complication is added by the fact that in all classes of case the English court at present has no jurisdiction if the husband or father is out of England—say in Scotland. The position in Northern Ireland is much the same as it is in England.
The difficulties, however, do not end there. Even if a decree is obtained, the position in all three countries is that where the man against whom the decree was granted has moved out of the country where the order was made there is no practical method of enforcing it against him. This has given rise to grave injustices and hardship, and many a woman has been deprived of the protection which the law sought to provide. We are determined to provide machinery to counteract the existing immunity of these "hit and run" husbands and their more peripatetic but less official counterparts, and it is in that spirit that I invite the House to approach this Bill.
The Bill consists of two main Parts. Part I relates to the jurisdiction of courts of summary jurisdiction in England and Northern Ireland, and of sheriff courts in Scotland, to make and vary orders. Part II relates to the enforcement of orders of all courts, and the discharge and variation of orders which are registered in either the superior or inferior courts. Let me state at this stage, first, that this Bill does not in any way provide any new grounds of action, but merely deals with the questions of jurisdiction and enforcement; and second, that the jurisdictions conferred by the Bill are in addition to, and not in derogation of, any existing jurisdiction of the courts concerned.
Under Part I of the Bill, in wife maintenance cases the existing jurisdiction of courts of summary jurisdiction in England


and Northern Ireland is extended to cover the cases where the defendant is out of England or Northern Ireland as the case may be, provided that the applicant resides in that country and the parties last ordinarily resided together there as husband and wife. In Scotland the jurisdiction is extended to the sheriff court within the jurisdiction of which the pursuer lives provided the parties last ordinarily resided together as husband and wife in Scotland.
Those actions, of course, may also include conclusions for payment of aliment for the child of the marriage. The extended jurisdiction only applies where the husband is resident in one of the other countries of the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] No doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman, in the course of his wide and extensive reading, knows exactly what "aliment" means. If he does not I think it is rather regrettable that he takes such a small interest in comparative law.

Professor Savory: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain what it does mean?

The Lord Advocate: If I may respectfully say so to the hon. Gentleman, I am rather appalled at the ignorance which is being displayed with regard to these historic rights of persons north of the Border.

Professor Savory: I regret my ignorance, but still I should like to have an explanation.

The Lord Advocate: As we in Scotland have been for years a great educational force, I readily accept the invitation of the hon. Gentleman. It is the amount of money ordered by the court to be paid by a person for the maintenance of a person for whose maintenance he is responsible.
Turning next to orders for the maintenance of infants under the Guardianship of Infants Acts, Clause 2 provides that the jurisdiction in England is given to the court of summary jurisdiction within whose jurisdiction the mother resides, provided that the mother and infant reside in England and the father resides either in Scotland or in Northern Ireland. In Scotland the jurisdiction is granted to the sheriff court in whose jurisdiction the mother resides, provided that the corresponding conditions are satisfied. Sum-

mary courts in Northern Ireland have no jurisdiction in respect of guardianship orders, and so there is no corresponding provision for Northern Ireland.
Clauses 3, 8 and 11 deal with affiliation orders in the respective countries, and, in effect, provide that the mother of the illegitimate child can raise her action in her "home" court, provided that the act of intercourse resulting in the birth of the child took place in that country and the putative father resides in one or the other of the other two countries in the United Kingdom. Similar jurisdiction is given in cases where by statute the National Assistance Board or the local authority are given the right to sue in lieu of the mother.
Clauses 4, 9 and 12 relate to maintenance orders which may, under the existing law, be made on the application of the National Assistance Board or a local authority. These Orders fall into four classes. The first consist of what are really affiliation orders, made on the application not of a mother but of the authority who are spending money on the maintenance of an illegitimate child. The second type are orders directing that sums payable under existing affiliation orders to the mother be diverted to a local authority. The third are orders obtainable at the instance of the local authority against persons who, under the Children and Young Persons Acts, are liable to contribute to the maintenance of a child or young person who is being looked after by a local authority. Lastly, there are orders which can be made for the benefit of the National Assistance Board or a local authority when they are maintaining a person other than an illegitimate child—for example, a separated wife—for whose support the defendant is legally responsible.
In all these cases the Bill puts the Board or the local authority in a position to obtain and enforce orders when the defendant is in another part of the United Kingdom. To this end certain consequential Amendments have had to be made in the enactments concerned so as to bring them into the general scheme of Part I of the Bill. These Amendments are in the First Schedule of the Bill; they concern merely what authority can apply for orders and in what court.
So far as England and Northern Ireland are concerned, provision is made in


Clauses 5 and 13 for the transfer of proceedings in wife maintenance cases, on the defendant's request, from one court to another court in the same country, if the last matrimonial home of the parties was within the jurisdiction of the latter court. In Scotland no alteration of the existing law is necessary to enable such cases to be transferred from one sheriff court to another. The object of this provision is to secure that, in a proper case, the defendant who is summoned to appear in proceedings in a country in which he is not residing, shall not be put to defending the case in the place where the wife happens to be residing, when all the evidence is in the place where they last resided together as husband and wife.
We may illustrate that with a particular example. Suppose a husband and wife resided in Newcastle and that was where they last resided together. The husband goes to Scotland. The wife is entitled to raise an action under this Bill, but at the time when the action was raised, she is no longer residing in Newcastle but has gone to London. She raises her action, as she would be entitled under this Bill, in a court in the London area. When the husband is convened into the process he can move the court in London to transfer the case to the corresponding court in Newcastle, because most of the relevant evidence is in the Newcastle area.
Clause 15 relates to the service of process. Where the defendant is not resident in the country in which the proceedings are brought, the procedure will be that a summons issued in that country may be endorsed and served in the country of the defendant's residence. It has been provided that the service must be personal service, as it is thought that where a defendant is being summoned to answer proceedings in another country, the best possible means of giving him notice should be employed. If he does not appear, an order may be made against him in his absence, provided that a service of the summons is properly proved. This represents no departure from the normal practice in these cases.
Part II of the Bill provides that where a maintenance order has been made by a court in any part of the United Kingdom, the person entitled to payments

thereunder may apply for the decree to be registered in the court of the area where the person liable to make the payments resides. If the order is so registered it can be enforced in like manner as if it were an order of that court. The various kinds of orders concerned are set out in Clause 16, and this procedure covers existing as well as future orders.
Thus a woman who has obtained a decree for payment of aliment in Scotland against her husband who has come to reside in England can apply for registration of her decree in the appropriate English court. Once it is registered, it can be operated as if it were a decree of that English court. Orders made by superior courts, for example, the Supreme Court of Judicature in England, the Court of Session in Scotland and the Supreme Court of Judicature in Northern Ireland, may be registered in the corresponding court of the appropriate country. Orders made by inferior courts may be registered in the corresponding inferior courts in which such orders are made. An order cannot be registered in more than one court at the one time.
Clause 19 relates to the functions of collecting officers in England and Northern Ireland—there are no collecting officers in Scotland. Use has been made of the collecting officers both in the collection of moneys due when the order is registered in a court in England or Northern Ireland and in the giving of assistance to women in the registration and enforcement of orders.
I am sure this Bill will be non-controversial in the party sense and will enlist sympathy and support from all quarters of the House. I am confident that it will be warmly welcomed by all right-thinking people. If any one has qualms about the departure from the existing law of jurisdiction, I trust that these will be more than counteracted by the knowledge that since the law should at all times be an instrument of justice, it will be fulfilling that function in the present proposals, which will bring a much needed and long overdue relief to many women.

8.7 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The Lord Advocate has done his best to explain to the House the somewhat complicated provisions of this Bill.


Perhaps it has not been particularly easy for him to do so, or, indeed, particularly easy for the House to understand the explanation—interpolated, as it was, by the use of Scottish terms which are not familiar to those who practise in the courts of England or represent Northern Ireland. To the ordinary practitioner in Northern Ireland or in England, and to husbands wherever they are, the phrase the right hon. and learned Gentleman used about the husband being "convened into the process" may have caused alarm and dismay.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman did make one thing, at least, clear. That is that there are defects in the present law as applied between Scotland, England and Northern Ireland. We are grateful for that. Since 1945 many of us in this House have repeatedly, in our Questions, sought to raise this matter and to press the Government to introduce a Measure of this kind. It is a complicated Measure, and it is bound to be for the reasons the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave; but I am glad indeed that the efforts of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison), who has been most persistent in this matter, now look as if they are going to result in fruition. I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not see fit, in moving the Second Reading, to acknowledge the great support and encouragement he received in his efforts from another Scottish Member.
This Bill was described by the right hon. and learned Gentleman as a Bill aimed—I use his phrase—"at hit-and-run husbands." I am not sure that that is at all an accurate description. It is true it is aimed at men, but not only husbands. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to use a phrase of that description, it would have been better to say that this Bill was aimed at "those who kiss and run away."

The Lord Advocate: I did not confine it to the husband. I referred to "hit-and-run husbands and their more peripatetic and less official counterparts." I thought he would have understood what I meant by that.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: It is quite true that the Lord Advocate was speaking the language of England and not the language of Scotland. "Hit-and-run hus-

bands" was the expressive phrase he used. I must say that as a husband I rather deplore the use of the word "husband" at the end of that phrase. Be that as it may, it is not, perhaps, without significance that the Second Reading of this Bill should have been moved by the Lord Advocate, bearing in mind that the general trend in this island is not from south to north but from north to south. Whether this Bill will bring more benefits to those ladies who reside in Scotland than it does to those ladies who reside in England, only the future will show.
This is, as I have said, a very complicated Measure, but we on this side of the House regard it as very desirable. We think it is very wrong that a man—I use the more general expression—should be able to avoid his responsibilities to his wife or to his children by slipping across the Border, going either south or north, or indeed by going to Northern Ireland or leaving Northern Ireland. But I should like to point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that this Bill does not entirely prevent evasion of such responsibilities. It will still be possible to evade the responsibilities by crossing the border from Northern Ireland into Eire or by going from this country or from Scotland into Eire.
I must confess that I am entirely ignorant of the law of Eire, but I should have thought that probably the Government of that country would have secured, if necessary, the alteration of the law so that a man in that country would be responsible for his wife and children in much the same way as here. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to pursue investigations and enter into discussions to see whether or not it would be possible, by agreement with the Government of Eire, to extend the good provisions of this Bill so that Eire will also be covered by provisions of this character. The fact that Eire is not covered may be unavoidable, but it is, I think, a little unfortunate. Bearing in mind the numbers who come from Eire to this country, I cannot but feel that it might be possible to enter into a reciprocal arrangement with Eire in this matter.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman went into some detail in describing the different tests that have to be applied in considering the question of jurisdiction both in Scotland and in England. I have


one criticism to make of this Bill, and only one, but I think it is rather important, because the Bill as it now stands may prove in that particular respect difficult to operate and awkward in its operation. The House will see that under Clause 1 the jurisdiction in the English courts in respect of maintenance will depend upon the parties either being last ordinarily resident in this country as man and wife or upon the respondent being resident in England. Residence is the test of jurisdiction, and is the sole test under Clause 1. I am not dealing with variation of orders that have already been made, to which different considerations apply. I am talking about the initial grant of an order.
Under Clause 2, again the jurisdiction of the English summary courts in respect of orders for maintenance of children depends solely upon residence, and it is when one comes to Clause 3 that one sees that in the cases under the Bastardy Laws Amendment Act, 1872, or the National Assistance Act, 1948, or the Children Act, 1948, the Government are seeking to introduce into the law of England—I do not profess to speak for the law of Scotland—an entirely new criterion; that is to say, if this Bill becomes law in its present form the jurisdiction of the English courts will depend upon proof that the act of intercourse resulting in the birth of a child took place in England.
Up till now the jurisdiction of the English courts in such matters has solely depended upon the residence of the mother, both under the Bastardy Laws Amendment Act and under the National Assistance Act and the Children Act, 1948. This new criterion which is to be introduced in this Bill, if it is passed in its present form, seems to me likely to raise serious difficulties in practice. The House will see that under Clause 8 a similar criterion has to be applied with regard to jurisdiction in the Scottish courts. From what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, I did not understand that any proof of that nature had now to be given in the Scottish courts before the man was convened into the process. It would appear to be something quite new.
Courts of summary jurisdiction are, rightly, pretty careful where questions of

the jurisdiction of the court are concerned. Before they can act they will have to be satisfied that they in fact have jurisdiction to make an order, and I can see the possibility of cases arising where, if those Clauses stand in their present form, the complainant goes into the court in Scotland and asks for an order and the court say that they are not satisfied that the act of intercourse resulting in the birth of the child took place in Scotland. If the court came to that conclusion that they were not so satisfied, the court could not make an order. The woman might go across the border and start proceedings in the English court. That court might reach the same conclusion, and that lady would be left without any remedy at all.
I regard that as a serious defect in this Bill. I can see no reason for its inclusion. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not sought to justify it at all. All sorts of possibilities enter into one's mind. I believe that Berwick, for these purposes, counts as being in England, but Berwickshire does not. To prove the jurisdiction of the Scottish courts it is not sufficient to prove that any act of intercourse has taken place; the court would have to be satisfied that it is the particular act of intercourse resulting in the birth of a child. In my opinion, speaking for myself, I think that is putting a quite intolerable burden upon the complainant who is seeking to obtain an order. It is a quite unnecessary provision and I can see no advantage in it whatsoever. Indeed, if anything of this sort took place—I do not know if it would on our nationalised railways—in a train which was running between Scotland and England I can see the greatest uncertainty arising and considerable litigation of a character which one does not want to encourage. I can see no useful purpose being served by the retention of these words.
If the House looks a little further in the Bill, at Clause 11, it will see that that curious stipulation is inserted with regard to the jurisdiction of Northern Ireland. Here, again, jurisdiction in such matters will depend upon proof that the act of intercourse resulting in the birth of the child took place in Northern Ireland. I believe there is a steamship service from Glasgow to Northern Ireland. What happens if the act of intercourse took place in the course of a voyage and outside the three-mile limit from Northern


Ireland and well away from the port of Glasgow? Perhaps the Lord Advocate will be able to tell us at a later stage.
I ask that some consideration should be given to that point. In my opinion, all that is required is to say that where the woman ordinarily resides in England and the child is born while she is residing in England, then she should have recourse to the English courts; but where the woman resides in Scotland and is ordinarily resident there when the child is born, then she should have recourse to the Scottish courts; and there should be a similar provision with regard to Northern Ireland. I cannot see that that could possibly result in any injustice.
Whether it would mean more legal proceedings in Scotland than in England or Northern Ireland seems to me a matter of small moment. By inserting that stipulation, which, after all, is entirely in accordance with the law as it exists today in this country with regard to such matters, we are laying down a clear rule, something which it is pretty easy for the complainant to establish, something which it is pretty easy for the court to determine.
I regard that as a criticism of some substance because it will affect the operation of this Bill. I apologise to the House for perhaps speaking too long on the subject but it is important. Subject to that one criticism, I would say that we welcome the Bill. I have no other criticism to make of it. It does something for which we on this side of the House have pressed for a long time, and my only regret is that at the present moment it is not possible to extend its operation to Eire and to give to those women who live in Eire similar facilities for pursuing those who run away to this country.

8.23 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In welcoming the introduction of this Bill I must say at the outset that I was glad to hear what the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manning-ham-Buller) had to say. I have always found it difficult to be quite certain what kind of legal reforms are regarded as non-controversial. I have long since come to the conclusion that the best and safest definition of what constitutes non-controversial legislation in the sphere of legal reform is this simple test: whether

the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South, regards it as controversial or not.
On this occasion he made it quite clear, subject to one or two reservations with which my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will probably be able to deal, that he welcomes the Bill. I was rather surprised to hear him say that he and his hon. Friends had been pressing for this reform for a considerable time. I do not recall occasions on which he pressed ardently for this reform, but if I do him an injustice in that respect I will gladly withdraw. It is, of course, a fact that this problem has needed attention for many years.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: I have been pressing for this personally for nine years, as every Secretary of State, Lord Advocate and Law Officer knows.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In that case I withdraw what I said so far as the hon. and gallant Member is concerned, but I do not feel called upon to extend that withdrawal to many other hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member takes that line. I have supported my hon. and gallant Friend on this subject on many occasions. I have no references to HANSARD here, but I am pretty sure that that is so, quite apart from whether I have raised the subject myself.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: My hon. Friend the Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes) reminds me that there was no reference to this much-needed reform in the Tory election manifesto or the book called "The Right Road for Britain." I am not complaining about that, because there was no mention of it, either, in the Labour Party's manifesto, nor was there any mention in the King's Speech a few weeks ago, of the Government's intention to introduce the Bill.

The Lord Advocate: At the Scottish Labour Party conference in Aberdeen last year, I gave a personal undertaking that I would do my utmost to see this Bill put on the Statute Book.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I am very glad to hear that from my right hon. and learned Friend. I only wish that other undertakings which have been given to


political party conferences by other people were as quickly redeemed.
If I may revert to the Bill itself, which I am glad to know is non-controversial, the first comment I would make is that the title is satisfactory, in this sense—that it immediately discloses what the Bill is about. Hitherto we have had Bills before the House in which very important and useful reforms have been introduced under some such comprehensive and meaningless title as, "Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions)," which, of course, nobody understands without looking up the text of the Bill or the Act concerned. I hope that in this respect we are establishing a useful precedent and that in future Measures of legal reform the purpose of the Bill will not be buried in some vague form of words which do not disclose immediately what is the object of the Bill.
This Bill deals with a defect in the present law which has operated harshly in the case of many women who, in the past, have had occasion to seek maintenance orders, affiliation orders, or orders in respect of guardianship of infants in courts of summary jurisdiction in the three parts of the United Kingdom. So far as these unfortunate women are concerned, it has been a very dis-united kingdom. They realise that to their cost when they endeavour to secure some measure of justice in these three categories of cases. By adding to the jurisdiction of the various courts of summary jurisdiction in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, a very useful contribution will have been made towards the removal of what has undoubtedly operated as an unfair anomaly adversely affecting the interests of quite a considerable number of women and children.
A serious objection to this Bill is that mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller), who referred to the gap which exists in this field of law because there is no reciprocal arrangement of any kind with the Government of the Republic of Eire. I fear that, as a result of the passing of this Bill, we are creating a new Alsatia in Southern Ireland. For the benefit of Scottish Members, who may not know what that reference implies,

Alsatia was the name given in the 17th century to a district between the Thames and Fleet Street which afforded sanctuary to debtors, criminals and all kinds of undesirable people who sought to evade their responsibilities or their civic liabilities in one way or another.
With the passing of this Bill we shall be faced with the situation in which any man who wishes to evade his responsibilities in respect of wife maintenance or affiliation orders has only to go and settle down in Southern Ireland, when he will be immune from legal process for the rest of his days. That does not strike me as a very satisfactory state of affairs. I am certain that if the matter were discussed with the responsible authorities in Eire it should be possible to arrive at some reasonable arrangement which would overcome what may develop into a rather serious social problem.
By way of precedent, it is possible to quote the arrangements that have already been made between the Ministry of National Insurance in this country and what I believe is called the Social Welfare Department of the Government in Dublin, the result of which is to enable widows who may be entitled to widows' pensions under the National Health Act or the National Insurance Act of this country to draw their pensions. What has been done in this particular sector of our social life ought not to be impossible of achievement in respect of these important matters relating to the maintenance of wives, or children, or the guardianship of infants.
By way of illustration of the difficulties that may arise by reason of there being no arrangement apparently under consideration with the Government of Eire, let me quote the case of Mr. Denis James Corcoran, who has been a prisoner in Winchester Gaol since February, 1948. He is in prison at this moment for contempt of court arising from his refusal to comply with an order of the court to hand the daughter of his marriage into the custody of his former wife, from whom he is now divorced. The child who should have been handed over to the wife—who is a resident in this country—is at the moment, I understand, living with a grandmother in Tipperary. What happened was that the wife went to the Supreme Court in Dublin with a view to securing custody of the child,


and the decision of the Supreme Court in Dublin was that the mother should not have custody of the child.

Professor Savory: May I point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that it was only done by a majority of the court and that there was a dissenting judgment by Mr. Justice Black exposing the injustice of the decision?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): This matter does not arise on the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I am citing this case by way of illustrating the kind of situation that may arise.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If I knew what the hon. and gallant Member was trying to illustrate I might be able to follow his argument a little better. What is it going to illustrate?

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: The case which I have mentioned illustrates the point that where there is a conflict between a court in Eire and a court in this country the custody of a child remains a matter of dispute for which at the moment there does not seem to be any solution. I mention the case because this situation may well arise in the future if we persist in following a policy which excludes from our consideration in dealing with these matters the relationship between the courts in this country and the courts in the Republic of Ireland. In this case, where the custody of the child is in dispute——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Bill does not have any effect upon Eire.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: That is the point.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must confine his remarks to the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: It is my complaint that the Bill has no relationship to Eire.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is my complaint too.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? I may be wrong, but I have always understood that on the Second Reading of a

Bill one could refer to matters which were not included in the Bill but which one thought should be included in the Bill.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, but one has to keep within the scope of the Bill, and Eire would be outside the scope of this Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In that case, I must comply with your Ruling and leave it at that, There is no reason why our relationship with the courts of Eire should not have been brought within the scope of the Bill, or should not be brought within the scope of the Bill at a later stage.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. and gallant Member looks at the long title of the Bill he will find that that could not be done.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In those circumstances I will proceed to the next point, in which I find myself in a considerable measure of agreement with the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller). He referred to the introduction of what appears to be a new principle into the Bill. If a woman seeks an affiliation order against a father, such father being resident in either Scotland or Northern Ireland, she may take proceedings in the English court if the act of intercourse took place in England. In the case of a Scotswoman she may proceed against the father in England or in Northern Ireland if the act of intercourse took place in Scotland. In the case of a woman living in Northern Ireland, she can take proceedings against a father in England or Scotland if the act of intercourse took place in Northern Ireland.
It would be very much simpler and would lead to more expeditious justice if the actual location of the act of intercourse were not made a matter which has to be proved in the court before which an order is sought. It should be sufficient for the purpose of the administration of justice if it can be proved that no matter where the act of intercourse took place the man against whom the proceedings are being taken is the father of the child. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will find it possible to say that he will look at the matter again with a view to deleting the references in the Bill to the necessity of establishing where the act of intercourse took place.
Like the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northants, South, I find when I come to the end of my speech, that notwithstanding what I have said I am an ardent supporter of the Bill, and I hope that it will not be long before it reaches the Statute Book. It introduces a much-needed reform in the law relating to this subject. If we have another 20 or 30 Bills of the same limited scope, we shall eventually be able to clear up the mess and muddle in which so many of the laws relating to marriage and the issue of marriage are found to be at present. The Bill represents a small but useful instalment towards clarifying and making more just the law relating to these important matters of grave and far-reaching social significance.

8.43 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Claris Hutchison: I shall not follow the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) in his endeavours to link up the Bill with Ireland, but I wish to take him to task for saying that insufficient interest in this matter has been shown by hon. Members on this side of the House. He will find in the OFFICIAL REPORT that my hon. Friend the Member for Pentlands (Lord John Hope) asked a Question about this not so long ago, the hon. Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) has also asked Questions about it, and others have done so, too. I should like also to point out that the Bill is of particular importance to women, yet the only hon. Lady present has been my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Miss Irene Ward). It is not at all reasonable to suggest that we have in any way been backward in taking an interest in this important subject.
As I mentioned in an interjection, I have been interested in this matter for nearly nine years because it was shortly after I entered the House for the first time that a constituent came to me with a tale of woe. She had obtained a decree of separation from her husband in the Scottish courts and the sheriff had made an order for aliment in her favour, but the husband had emigrated to Manchester, where he was in a very good job and was earning a steady wage but was not paying any money to his wife.
I went into this matter at that time and found there were great difficulties in getting anything done. I spent nearly three years corresponding with various legal organisations both in England and Scotland which assist people who are in poor circumstances and are unable to engage in litigation for themselves. Of course, I corresponded also with the Law Officers of the two countries but, eventually, as we seemed to be going round in a circle, I brought it up in the House in a Debate on the Adjournment in June, 1944. I remember the occasion quite well. It was the day after D-Day and there was a short, interesting discussion in which a number of Members on both sides took part. In his reply the then Attorney-General, who is now Lord Justice Somervell, completed his speech with these words:
But I will give my hon. and gallant Friend an undertaking, on behalf of the Home Office, the Lord Advocate and the Scottish Office, and on behalf of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, and myself, that we will look into this point, with regard to the enforcement in Scotland of English orders and in England of Scottish orders, because I am bound to say that such investigations as I have made, do indicate that there are uncertainties in the procedure at present."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th June, 1944; Vol. 400, c. 1477.]
That was the position in June, 1944, and since that date, as hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are well aware, I have pursued the Home Secretary and various Secretaries of State for Scotland and Law Officers asking when legislation would be introduced and, at long last, this useful but rather complicated Measure has seen the light of day.
Like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) and the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton, I welcome the Bill. I think its intentions are admirable but I have considerable difficulty in understanding some of its terms, particularly those which deal with English law. However, I am in good company because, during the Second Reading of this Bill in another place, both the Lord Chancellor and Lord Simon referred to it as being complicated and difficult to understand. In the circumstances, as a layman I feel that no apology is needed.
My remarks must of necessity be brief and cast in an interrogatory vein. There are three points I want to raise. From


what the Lord Advocate said in his opening address, I understand that when this Bill becomes law all orders at present existing, where there is a decree, can be enforced under Part II of this Bill, provided they are registered.

The Lord Advocate: The Lord Advocate indicated assent.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: That is important because, owing to the general upheaval of war-time conditions, there were a good many of these unhappy partings where the husband departed either north or south of the Border and the wife was deserted, and therefore this Bill should be applicable to deal with those cases even though they arose a number of years ago.
Secondly, prior to the introduction of this Measure and to the introduction of the National Assistance Act, in cases where the husband failed to fulfil his obligations to pay alimony to his wife, and the wife had recourse to what was then public assistance, it was within the power of the public assistance authority to take steps to compel the man to pay. There is some doubt whether the National Assistance Board has that power at present, but I understand that the effect of subsection (2) of Clause 16 will be to confer power upon the National Assistance Board to take action in cases where the wife is being given assistance from the Board. That is my interpretation. I rather think that the Lord Chancellor indicated that also in his speech in another place, but as I should like to be quite clear, perhaps the Attorney-General will mention this when he replies.
There is one other rather interesting question which arises. What will be the position in regard to enforcement if the husband leaves Scotland and proceeds, not to England, but to one of the Dominions or Colonies overseas? This is by no means a hypothetical question, for only a few months ago one of my constituents told me that her husband, from whom she had a decree of separation and who was paying aliment to her, had suddenly boarded an aeroplane for Johannesburg, where he is now in a very good job at a high rate of pay. He is not, of course, sending any money back to support his wife, who must therefore have recourse to National Assistance. After making investigations and having inter-

views with the officials of the National Assistance Board in Edinburgh, and finding that they could not tackle the problem, I put a Question to the Home Secretary on 26th October last asking how the case would have been dealt with had the man been living in England and not in Scotland. In his reply the Home Secretary said:
The Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Act, 1920, already provides for the reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders between England, Wales and Northern Ireland and those parts of His Majesty's dominions outside the United Kingdom to which the Act has been extended by Order in Council. I am sending to the hon. Member a list of those parts of His Majesty's dominions to which the Act at present applies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th October, 1949; Vol. 468, c. 163–4.]
The Home Secretary very kindly sent me immediately an imposing list of overseas territories embracing, I think, all the Dominions and Colonies, to which that Statute applies. The one country which it did not include, of course, was Scotland.

The Lord Advocate: It is not a Dominion.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: No, but the Act embraces the United Kingdom and has been extended to all these Colonies and Dominions. My point is to ask whether, when the Bill is passed into law, that position will be altered. I do not suppose that it will be altered by the Bill itself, but in the event of its passage into law will the Government consider drawing up a new Order in Council which will bring Scotland into this Empire scheme of reciprocity, so to speak, for the enforcement of the payment of aliment. That seems to me to be a very reasonable step and would tidy up the one outstanding loose end. I commend this point sincerely to both of the right hon. and learned Gentlemen who are present on the Government Front Bench.
That is all I have to say on the Bill. It is a very useful Measure and I hope that it may pass through all its stages before very long and will become law before the end of the Session.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I believe that the hon. and gallant Member for Edinburgh, West (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison), can claim to have exercised a great deal of pressure upon


various Home Secretaries and Secretaries of State for Scotland regarding the grievances which the Bill sets out to remedy. That is true also, I believe, of the noble Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir). But the hon. and gallant Member is going too far when he argues that this Measure has ever figured in the programme of social legislation which has been advocated by his party. I have been a very diligent student of the progress of the Conservative Party in these Measures for the last 20 years, and it is certainly news to me that this reform has ever been advocated officially by the party opposite.
Indeed, in view of the claim which the hon. and gallant Member has made, I am rather surprised that the Leader of the Opposition is not present, because at Question Time today he came forward, gready to our astonishment, as a defender of the rights of Scotland. We have had the right hon. Gentleman in Scotland twice this year, and he has made two great historical orations dealing with social legislation in Scotland. He even found time to work himself into a state of indignation about the housing problem, but I have never read in the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition any demand for a Maintenance Orders Bill such as we have before us now. I suggest that the hon. and gallant Member should inform the Leader of the Opposition that this is an important Measure and that we are entitled to have at least his moral support.
This matter has a long history, and those of us who served the old parish councils and public assistance committees in Scotland know how difficult it was to get maintenance orders enforced in England. I should like to stress the point which was raised by the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manning-ham-Buller), and the hon. and gallant Member for Edinburgh, West, and point out the anomaly which exists between Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland.
I will give an illustration. In my constituency, which is normally a very peaceful constituency, a military camp was established during the war—I need hardly say without my acquiescence. That immediately led to a variety of social problems. We had the Grenadier Guards there and the immediate result

—not an immediate result, but a subsequent result—was that we had to face this question of a rise in the illegitimate birthrate. Then we had the Inniskilling Fusiliers. A Scots mother would have the right to go to court to proceed against a private of the Inniskilling Fusiliers if he lived north of the Border, but if he lived in the island of Ochill, or a remote part of Donegal, there would be no grounds for claim at all.
I ask the Attorney-General to try to meet us in some way. It is a real grievance that if in one street a mother has a claim against a soldier in the Inniskilling Fusiliers who lived north of the Border, there could not be a claim for a woman on the other side of the street in respect of a soldier who lived in Donegal. We ought to find a way of getting round this particular difficulty. I believe it should be possible to do so at a later stage and that a further Clause might be introduced. I do not believe that it would be beyond the ingenuity of the Law Officers of the Crown to negotiate some agreement with the very human and intelligent Government in Eire with a view to getting reciprocity in this matter.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The hon. Member is well aware that this Bill refers only to the United Kingdom and there is no reference whatever to Eire.

Mr. Hughes: No, Sir, and that was the criticism of hon. Members on both sides of the House, especially the hon. and learned Member who opened for the Opposition. I only wish to add my small voice to the demand which was made.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is perfectly in order, as, no doubt, was the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller), in mentioning that fact in passing, but the hon. Member is now elaborating the point and going into detail which is not permissible.

Mr. Hughes: Yes, Sir; it was done retrospectively.
I should like to raise a further point to follow up questions which were put by the hon. and gallant Member for


Edinburgh. West, because we not only suffered from the Grenadier Guards and the Inniskilling Fusiliers: there were the Italians, the French, the Poles and the Germans. I ask the Attorney-General whether he is aware that this is an international question?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understood that the hon. Member had finished or was about to finish. In any event he must not proceed further along those lines.

Mr. Hughes: No, Sir. I have put my question and I hope that the Attorney-General will not ignore it when he replies to the Debate.
I suggest that this is a Measure which will commend itself to the people of Scotland, that it is an attempt to remedy a long-standing social grievance. We are indebted to the hon. and gallant Member for Edinburgh, West, for pursuing this question, and I am glad that this Bill has been brought forward by the Government.

9.2 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Hyde: I rise to speak in this Debate with feelings of considerable trepidation which are perhaps not unnatural in one who is called upon to address this House for the first time. For such shortcomings as I may betray in the few remarks I propose to make on this Measure, I ask the House to extend the full measure of that indulgence which it traditionally accords to Members making their maiden speeches.
In one respect I do not think that I shall transgress the rules and customs of the House. I am aware that a maiden speech should aim as far as possible at avoiding controversy. I know, too, that it is often an extremely difficult thing for an Irishman and an Ulsterman, as I am, to do that. Fortunately this Bill is, as the Lord Advocate and other speakers have pointed out, non-controversial in principle. I welcome it, particularly as it seeks to redress some very real grievances which were suffered, among others, by the inhabitants of Northern Ireland, of whose capital city my constituency forms a part. While the provisions of the Bill are necessarily complicated, its object is extremely simple. It is to extend to all parts of the United Kingdom the jurisdiction of the courts in maintenance matters, which is at present exercised in

each of the three parts of the United Kingdom to the mutual exclusion of the others.
Although Northern Ireland has been an integral part of the United Kingdom for 150 years, and although Scotland has similarly been a part of the United Kingdom for nearly a century longer, all the three parts of the United Kingdom have different systems of law and legal procedure in force. This accounts in some degree for the complexity of the present Bill. So far as the law of maintenance is concerned, I do not propose to follow those differences in detail, nor do I think it is necessary to do so.
But I would point out that in respect of two classes of maintenance which have been enumerated by the Lord Advocate, maintenance of wives and maintenance of illegitimate children, we in Northern Ireland consider that the law in our part of the Kingdom is considerably in advance of the law on these subjects in England. In England the maximum payment allowed to a wife is, at any rate was until recently, £2 per week and 10s. for the maintenance of each child to the age of 16. In Northern Ireland the maximum payment to the wife is £3 per week with a maximum of £1 for each child. Also in courts of summary jurisdiction in Northern Ireland, magistrates may grant what is tantamount to decrees of judicial separation on the grounds of adultery, with consequential orders for maintenance.
On the other hand, in affiliation proceedings in England, the liability of the man who is alleged to be the father of the child is a purely personal one, and on his death the mother cannot recover any arrears against his estate. In Northern Ireland the putative father's liability is not determined by his death. His personal representative may be made a party to the proceedings and the order enforced against his estate for the payment of a lump sum to the extent of the aggregate of the sums for which he would have been liable under the affiliation order had he lived.
On this subject I am reminded of the saying which was popular with the old Roman lawyers, to the effect that whereas maternity is a matter of fact, paternity is a matter of opinion. I do not know whether that opinion is more difficult to substantiate in Northern Ireland than in


England, or whether it is that we are more moral in Northern Ireland, but the fact remains that affiliation proceedings in our courts are not of such frequent occurrence as they are here or—and I speak subject to correction by the Lord Advocate—in Scotland. Indeed in Northern Ireland our illegitimate birth rate in relation to the total number of births in that part of the Kingdom is only about half of what it is in England, Wales and Scotland.
I do not pretend that in these matters we invariably do things better in Northern Ireland. When it comes to the third class of maintenance order, the maintenance of infants, unfortunately we have not in Northern Ireland the benefit of the jurisdiction conferred on summary courts in England and Scotland by the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1925. That Measure has laid down in effect that the rights of the mother in the matter of the custody, care and guardianship of an infant should be equal to those of the father. In Northern Ireland, and of course to a much greater extent in Eire, the view still prevails that in these matters the father has superior or over-riding rights.
The great feature about this Bill so far as the enforcement of an order is concerned, is that a man will no longer be able to avoid his obligations if he goes to another part of the Kingdom from that in which the order was made. The principal class of case and the one which most loudly calls for relief, at any rate in Northern Ireland, is that of wife maintenance. The situation is indeed anomalous that a married man may leave his wife in Belfast and go to Hong Kong or the Falkland Islands, and a maintenance order may be enforced against him in those territories, but if he crosses the Irish Sea to Liverpool or Glasgow, or crosses the border into Eire, nothing can legally be done, as the law stands at present, to oblige him to contribute to the upkeep of his wife and children.
Numbers of sad cases in my own constituency have come to my notice where the husband gets out of work, goes to the employment exchange and is sent to a job in England or Scotland where there is a shortage of labour in his particular trade. Because of the lack of living accommodation, or because his wife naturally wishes to keep their home going in

Northern Ireland, he is unable to bring her with him to his new job. He finds time on his hands and, as hon. Members will appreciate, as husbands sometimes do when they are separated from their wives, he makes fresh acquaintances; with the result that he comes to neglect his responsibilities to his wife and family. Time and again a woman in this sad condition has come to me and I have had to tell them that there is absolutely no legal remedy which she can pursue so long as the husband remains outside the jurisdiction of the courts in Northern Ireland.
I believe that this Measure will bring much-needed relief to many sorely tried women, not only in Northern Ireland but in other component parts of the Kingdom. So far as Northern Ireland is concerened, this Measure affords an excellent example of the co-operation which exists between the interested authorities in England, notably the Home Office, and the equivalent authorities in Northern Ireland. I know that the Attorney-General of Northern Ireland and the other authorities concerned in Northern Ireland do appreciate the spirit of co-operation and helpfulness shown when matters of particular concern to them were under negotiation with the Home Secretary.
The principle which this Bill embodies is plainly right. I feel certain that it must command the support and sympathy of all hon. Members of every shade of opinion in this House. Thus not only will it afford much needed relief to these women, but it will also have the effect, if I may respectfully adopt the words used by Lord Simon, in discussing the Bill in another place, of making the United Kingdom more united.
In conclusion, I should like to thank hon. Members for the courtesy with which they have listened to my remarks. This is the kind of Measure which I think shows all parties in this House at their best. In welcoming it, as I do most heartily, on behalf of myself and my colleagues who sit for Northern Ireland contituencies, including my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Professor Savory), I commend to the House a statement made by a distinguished predecessor of mine who represented the constituency which I represent when it was known as the Duncairn division—Edward Carson. I am glad to see that his name and tradition are being worthily maintained in this


House by his son, the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Carson). On a memorable occasion 32 years ago, Edward Carson said:
Remember that a people becomes great not merely by local politics or local questions, but by taking a broad survey in which each part of the city as it may be, or the country as it may be, or the Empire as it may be, is a help one to the other, thus making for the mutual greatness of all.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. Hoy: It is my pleasant duty on behalf of all hon. Members to convey congratulations to the hon. and gallant Member for Belfast, North (Lieut.-Colonel Hyde) on his maiden speech. He made it with a wit, a grace and a fluency well worthy of any Irishman. I do not think that I could pay him a higher tribute than that. I am certain that the House will look forward to the contributions which he will make to the many other Debates in which I am sure he will take part.
I think I ought to say a few words to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison). Last week he and I took part in a Debate which was rather more acrimonious than the one in which we are taking part tonight. I am afraid that I had to make some remarks to him which perhaps could not be regarded as pleasant. I take this opportunity of saying that he is entitled to some personal credit for the consistency of the work he has done in getting the Bill brought forward. I know that there are hon. Members on this side of the House who have worked very hard to cause this Measure to be brought forward, and I do not think that we should enter into a dispute about where the credit should go.
This human problem has been with us for many, many years. We are grateful that the Government have taken this step which, while it may not go as far as some hon. Members might wish, at least will cover 95 per cent. of the cases for which at present there is no solution. I refer to those cases in which the man disappears. In my own constituency I have had a few sorrowful cases of this kind, where young women of good character have married men of their choice. Some have found, after having had a family, that the husband has disappeared over the border. This has caused tremendous hardship for the woman and for the children.
It has always appeared to me as an awful anomaly that a state of affairs could arise within the United Kingdom in which the woman could take no action at all except, I think, through the National Assistance Board. I should like the Attorney-General either to confirm or to deny this point. The only point which I would take up is that made by the hon. and gallant Member for Edinburgh, West. I understand that, even at the present time it is possible for the National Assistance Board to take action against an erring husband on the other side of the border, but, be that as it may, at last, under this Bill when it becomes an Act, that will certainly take place. I welcome the Bill, and I am certain that it will commend itself to every section of the House.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Basil Meld: The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) was I think quite right in his concluding observation that the House will generally welcome this Measure. Before advancing to the substance of what I desire to say, there is one small point which I wish to raise. As several hon. Members have pointed out, this is a somewhat complex Bill. It will be observed that there are 32 Clauses and two Schedules, and I think I am right in saying that the Bill makes reference to some 23 existing statutes and also refers to a number of amendments to those statutes. The suggestion I am making, and I am uncertain about the machinery, is that an explanatory memorandum would have been of great assistance to hon. Members. These matters are rather difficult, especially to those who are not lawyers, and I throw that suggestion out for consideration in the future.
The Lord Advocate, in opening the Debate, pointed out that we are here considering three categories of court orders—namely, wife maintenance orders, affiliation orders and orders made under the Guardianship of Infants Acts. I feel that the House is more concerned in this matter with the social problems involved than with the legal niceties, however important they are, and it will be appreciated that the majority of cases which will be involved are cases of women who are in unfortunate circumstances. For example, the wife who has been deserted or neglected by her husband and seeks to require him to pay for her maintenance,


and the woman who has an illegitimate child and seeks to have that child maintained.
I would say that, in these cases, there are three essential stages to be considered. The first is that it is absolutely essential that the defendant in the procedings shall be properly served with the summons and process. Plainly, one who is called upon to answer some allegation must know what it is and where he must appear in order to have an opportunity of defending himself, and one hopes that this requirement as to strict proof of service will never be relaxed by any of these courts. The next stage is the hearing of the proceedings, in which event the court must have proper jurisdiction. Finally, if the defendant is properly served and if the court has jurisdiction and makes an order, it is essential that there should be adequate machinery for enforcement. These three stages are dealt with in this Measure—the question of service, the jurisdiction of the court and the enforcement of the order.
If I might give two short illustrations of the sort of difficulty which obtains at the moment, hon. Members will appreciate the kind of social problem which is involved here. For example, if there is a married couple living in England and the husband deserts his wife and goes to Scotland, the wife, as I understand it, cannot obtain an order from the English court, which has no jurisdiction since the defendant is in Scotland. That situation is righted by this Measure. Again, if we take the case of a woman who gives birth to an illegitimate child in Scotland and the alleged father is in England, in the present situation the woman cannot apply to a court in England, because she does not live there, nor can she apply to a court in Scotland, because the defendant is out of Scotland. This Bill, again, provides the remedy for that.
Then so far as enforcement is concerned, as I have pointed out, many difficulties arise. The court makes an order in England; the defendant makes his way to Scotland; and the order cannot be enforced. That matter, as I understand it, is to be cleared up by Clause 16 of this Bill in this way, that an order made in any part of the United Kingdom, if registered, in a court in another part of the United Kingdom may be enforced there.
It seems to me that we are right tonight to welcome this Measure as making good some of the defects which have obtained in our legal system. I do not propose to discuss whether hon. Members on this side of the House have pressed for it—as they clearly have—or whether hon. Members on the other side have pressed for it. Let us be content with the fact that it has now appeared, and that in all quarters it has been well received. I very much hope it will be given a Second Reading.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. Weitzman: I do not desire to introduce any acrimonious note, but when one hears claims made on the other side of the House about pressure having been brought by that side to produce this Measure, one is very much tempted to ask, Why on earth was it not brought forward many years ago? The Bill undoubtedly fulfils a need for very necessary reforms. Illustrations have been given by a number of hon. Members about erring husbands who have come from Scotland to England, but there is one comparatively recent case in England which I should like to mention, for it does illustrate the necessity for the measures contained in this Bill.
It is the recent case of McCrae v. McCrae, a Divisional Court decision. In that case the wife in England was deserted by her husband who went to Inverness, and the court held that he was outside its jurisdiction to issue a summons as he was ordinarily resident in Scotland; and the Divisional Court held that that decision was a correct one. That is, of course, a very serious position. This Bill is a very good one in the fact that it remedies that situation, and deals with others at the same time. I desire only to mention that case as providing a practical example. I, like other hon. Members, welcome very much the introduction of this Bill.

9.23 p.m.

Mr. John Hay: I want to join in the chorus of approval which has come from all quarters of the House for this Bill, and to welcome it. Those of us who have had any experience at all of the grave difficulties into which women sometimes get because of the disappearance of their husbands, compelling them to resort to the magistrates' courts for the necessary


maintenance to enable them and their children to live, know that this is a very grievous problem indeed. The only criticism that I have to make of the Bill is in respect of one omission rather, than of what is contained in the Bill. I shall deal with that in a moment.
I think the Bill does clear up a very anomalous position. For a number of years it has been possible to enforce maintenance orders made in this country or Scotland or Northern Ireland in other parts of the British Empire and Commonwealth under the Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Act, but until the introduction of this Bill it has been quite impossible to enforce maintenance orders made in this country in Scotland or Northern Ireland. Therefore, I welcome the Bill.
However, there is one important matter which I regret very much is not contained in the Bill. One of the big difficulties I have always noticed in the endeavour to enforce maintenance orders has been the difficulty of finding the husbands. Very often men do go off and leave their wives, and often their children as well, and one of the big difficulties we always find when we come to advise these people is in regard to tracing the missing men.
There has been on the Statute Book since, I believe, 1939, the National Registration Act. It was that Act which brought into being the identity card and registration system. I am very sorry that this Bill does not contain some amendment of the law relating to that Act which would enable a wife who is deserted by a husband—provided that there were some preparatory examination by a magistrates' court to show it was a bona fide case—to find out exactly where her husband is through the procedure of the National Registration Office. If that were done, it would be possible in many cases for wives to trace their husbands, to take proceedings and have an order made.
The big difficulty is in finding the husband and serving the summons upon him. Though the Bill does a very great deal to assist wives whose husbands have gone to Scotland, Northern Ireland or some other part, we are still faced with the difficulty that if the husband goes off we are unable to find him. I hope that at a later stage it will be possible and practicable to introduce some kind of

legislation for the purpose of amending the National Registration Act to enable wives to trace their husbands through the facilities of the National Registration Office.
I see there is no reference in this Bill to either the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man. I wonder whether that is a deliberate or accidental omission. I hope the Attorney-General will consider the possibility of inserting in the Bill a reference to them as well as to Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is quite possible that a man might go off to those places, and the same facilities should apply there. Generally, I welcome the Bill. I believe it is a very good Measure and that it will do a great deal to help a very deserving kind of person.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. Janner: I also rise to commend the Government for this Measure. I go very much further than those who have spoken already and say that it is a very excellent Measure. To those who really know what happens in the courts from day to day, it is perfectly obvious that this is a Bill that is very considerably overdue. It seems, from some of the speeches one hears, that the difficult position of those whose cases come within the scope of a Measure of this kind are not understood, or at least not sufficiently understood. Our courts today have applications made to them, daily, by women who find themselves in a desperate position. First, some cannot obtain orders, and, secondly, others having obtained orders find difficulty in enforcing those orders which are so essential to keep them alive and, in many cases, to keep their children alive.
I am very glad, indeed, that this Government, although under the pressure of very heavy work, has seen fit to introduce this Measure. I am also glad it has met with general approval throughout the House. It is rather late in the day to deal with some of the detailed matters that ought to be dealt with in respect of this Bill. Perhaps we shall have an opportunity of doing so at a later stage.
This Bill was discussed in another place. It was said there on the Second Reading that in the course of the Committee stage opportunity would be given for dealing with certain improvements. But when it came to the Committee stage, the Mem-


bers of that other place found it so comprehensive that it was not necessary for them to deal with any matter other than one simple Amendment—if one can call any Amendment a simple one in a complicated Measure of this sort. It dealt with just one short point. I hope that when the Attorney-General replies he will assure us that the points that have been raised today will be dealt with on the Committee stage.
I hope I shall be forgiven if I touch on one point which has been referred to already. The question of enforcing orders made in the United Kingdom which are now not enforceable outside the United Kingdom is of great importance. This Measure deals with enforcement within the United Kingdom, but the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) raised a point of extreme importance. He pointed out if an order is made in this country there is difficulty in enforcing it when a person goes across a border, whatever border that may be. It is not possible to pursue the person concerned. It will be possible in Scotland and in Northern Ireland by virtue of this Bill, but it will not be possible to go further than that except where there is a reciprocal arrangement. In some countries there is a reciprocal arrangement, and of course it is absurd that in respect of Eire, which is so near, such a reciprocal arrangement does not apply.
I think this Measure will bring a considerable amount of relief to many thousands of women in this country. Those who preside in our courts have been very unhappy in the knowledge that they cannot deal with many heartrending cases of women who should be entitled to receive proper treatment—treatment similar to that which is obtainable by women who live within certain other areas—and these magistrates have been endeavouring for many years to get this position cleared up. I hope that when this Measure comes into force it will be made known not only to the smaller circle of lawyers but throughout the country so that women who are entitled to relief will know what are the means of obtaining that relief available to them.
I do not think that at this late hour one can say much more than that. I want

to conclude by impressing upon hon. Members the fact that this Government has taken steps to increase the amounts recoverable for maintenance of women. One hon. Member said that in Ireland £3 a week could be recovered for maintenance whereas in this country only £2 could be granted. That is not correct. This Government has seen to it that the amount which can be obtained is £5 a week instead of £2, and the amount for a child £2 and not £1. Therefore, he was wrong.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Was not that achieved by a Private Member's Bill?

Mr. Janner: I cannot remember. I have got the Bill with me here. However, if it was a Private Member's Bill, then the Government facilitated its progress. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows very well that if the Government had decided to oppose a Bill of that nature they could easily have done so. That Measure was carried through with the encouragement and with the support of the Government. It was not carried through by a Conservative Government. It did not appear until this Government, with its great humane outlook—[Laughter.] Yes, indeed; many Measures have gone on the Statute Book owing to that humane outlook—Measures which should have been on the Statute Book many years ago. However, I do not want to pursue that matter; this would probably be out of order. I feel sure that the whole House will accept this Measure with acclamation.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I rise only to put to the Attorney-General a question of general import which I hope he will answer for the benefit of a mere layman, because although of general import it is a question which I think the House ought to consider when giving a Second Reading to this Bill. The Lord Advocate did not under-estimate the constitutional importance of the Bill. He described it as "a departure from the existing law of jurisdiction"—a law which I believe is of immense antiquity both in respect of Scotland and of Ireland.
The great constitutional lawyer in another place to whom my hon. and


gallant Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Lieut.-Colonel Hyde) referred, described this Measure as making the Union of 1707 a more complete union. I understand that it does so by extending in respect of a certain type of action the jurisdiction of courts of summary jurisdiction and the area of enforcement of orders which they make.
The question I want to ask the Attorney-General is this: Is there not a much wider class of actions to which the same limitation at present applies—the limitation which the Bill removes in this particular case. The reason given for this Bill—and it is a reason with which I entirely agree—is that it removes a cause of injustice to injured parties, but is that not equally true of other actions which still remain limited in respect of jurisdiction and enforcement? In short, I want the right hon. and learned Gentleman to make quite clear whether the House, by giving a Second Reading to this Bill, is not, in fact, committing itself to the principle of a much wider alteration to the law of jurisdiction.

9.37 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): We have had a very interesting discussion on this somewhat complex and complicated Bill and I should like to say how glad we are on this side of the House that the Bill has been so warmly welcomed. It has been a most interesting and, on occasion, entertaining discussion. The usual experience that I have had—and I expect the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller), has had a similar experience—in the class of case with which this Bill is largely concerned is that the putative father is rather inclined, if I may use a carefully considered phrase, to hide his light under a bushel. It has rarely been my experience in cases of that sort that a number of people have come forward claiming to be the father of the illegitimate child.
But it has been notable in the case of this Bill that a number of hon. Members on the other side of the House have devoted themselves to proving that, in fact, they were, whether severally or collectively, the true parents of this admirable infant. If so, I am bound to say that the Bill has had an unusually long period of gestation. Between 1919 and 1939

hon. Members opposite had, I think, at least 18 years in which they had ample opportunity not only to conceive but also to produce a Bill dealing with these matters and, indeed, as I understand from the history of that time, they had full time to devote to matters of this sort, for they were not otherwise fully occupied with useful legislation. But the fact is that there is nothing in any way illegitimate about this Bill. It is the result of a lawful union between the Scottish Office and the Home Office, under their present Secretaries of State, and my position in the matter is simply that of a somewhat inexperienced accoucheur.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes), in his most important and interesting speech, paid a great tribute—and I am sure one which was well deserved—to the virility of the Inniskilling Fusiliers. He followed the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South, in dealing with the point that, although this Bill will greatly diminish the possibilities which exist under the law as it now stands of husbands, or the fathers of illegitimate children, evading their responsibilities, there would remain cases in which evasion would still occur. Of course, that is very true. It is always possible that those who are so minded will be able to fly from their responsibilities by going to some other country where the King's Writ does not run.
I do not know that one ought specially to single out the Irish Republic in this particular connection. I do not know that there is any reason to suppose that faithless husbands or lax libidinous lovers go to the Irish Republic rather than to other countries on the Continent of Europe. But I certainly do not exclude the possibility that by agreement—and it can only be done by agreement—arrangements, not I think for concurrent jurisdiction, but for mutual enforcement, might be made with the Irish Republic or perhaps with other countries. We have, of course, no powers to legislate for the Irish Republic—no more power to legislate for that country than we have to legislate for any other country which is outside the British Commonwealth—and arrangements of the kind contemplated by the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayrshire, South, and other hon. Members who succeeded in


speaking about this matter before they were ruled out of order, could only be brought about by the establishment of, first of all, treaty relationships in regard to the matter, and subsequently by the legislation of the respective countries implementing the treaty arrangements.
I say that it would be necessary to have not only treaty arrangements dealing with the matter but then in each country to have legislative provisions implementing those treaties, because this is not a matter which can be dealt with by treaty alone. In other spheres it is indeed possible to make comparable arrangements by treaty or by contract. In the law of motor insurance, arrangements of that kind are sometimes made. But here, where one is dealing with questions between different countries, we need not only a treaty but legislation as well, and that can only be accomplished by agreement. I do not think I ought to say anything more about that, except to say that I do not by any means exclude the possibility that in relation to the Irish Republic, or possibly other countries with which there is frequent intercourse, arrangements of this kind might be concluded.
The hon. and gallant Member for Edinburgh, West (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison) called attention to the fact that existing orders made, either by the courts of this country, or the courts of Scotland, or the courts of Northern Ireland in past years, although not now under the existing law enforceable in other parts of the United Kingdom, will, under the provisions of this Bill, become capable of registration in those other parts of the United Kingdom where the defendant may be residing, and will thus be enforceable there. That is certainly the result of the provisions of the Bill. I am very glad to have had the hon. Member's enthusiastic support for this principle of retrospective legislation.
The hon. and gallant Member for Edinburgh, West, asked, as did also the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay), about the position in the case of proceedings taken by the National Assistance Board. I understand the position to be that the National Assistance Board is empowered under the existing legislation to bring proceedings in England against a defendant who is in England and in Scotland against

a defendant who is in Scotland, but that there is no enforceability across the Border. The Bill will now make orders obtained in proceedings of that kind enforceable across the Border in just the same way as they will be enforceable where the proceedings have been taken at the instance of the woman herself.
The hon. and gallant Member for Edinburgh, West, also asked whether the Bill applied to other countries in the Commonwealth. The answer is, of course, that it does not, and that a Bill of the United Kingdom Parliament could not apply in that way. There is a Statute passed in agreement with other countries, and implemented in agreement with them, to which the hon. Member for Henley did refer, the Maintenance Orders (Enforcement Facilities) Act, 1920, which contains certain machinery relating, not I think to affiliation orders, but to maintenance orders and orders for the guardianship of infants. It permits enforcement in other Commonwealth countries. That, unfortunately, is not an Act which applies to Scotland, and consequently its machinery is only available in this country. This Bill cannot amend that Act.
Then there was the speech made by the hon. and gallant Member for Belfast, North (Lieut.-Colonel Hyde), whom I am glad to see back in his place. He, most appropriately, chose the Bill as the subject of a maiden speech. It is very usual, in congratulating a maiden speaker from this Box, to say that he has shown great knowledge of the subject matter on which he has spoken, and to hope that on future occasions he will give the House the benefit of his experience in the same matter again. I feel that if I were to say anything of that kind on this occasion, it might be open to some misconstruction. However, I should like to congratulate the hon. and gallant Member on the speech which he made and on the cogency of the arguments which he advanced. I am sure that the whole House will look forward to hearing him speak again, if not upon this matter, at any rate upon other matters. The hon. and gallant Member also asked about the position in regard to the National Assistance Board. I have covered that point in the observations that I have just made.
The hon. Member for Henley asked whether it would be possible to amend


the National Registration Act to enable us to trace absconding husbands or absent lovers through the national registration machinery. That is a very wide problem which is not confined to orders of the kind contemplated by the Bill. I hardly think it is a matter within the scope of the present Measure. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Enoch Powell) asked whether there was not a further class of action where the principle embodied in the Bill could be applied. There may be other cases and I should think that is quite possible. But the most difficult class of case is where an order is made for the payment of a weekly sum. Where there is an order for a payment of a lump sum by way of damages or whatever it may be, the judgment of one part of the United Kingdom may be enforced in the other parts as a judgment debt. The difficulty is more acute where the order provides for a payment week by week. It is not convenient to sue each week as the money falls due. I think that we have met the most important class of case in the Bill.
I now come to the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) following the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northants, South. He raised what is, I think, the only point of substance and, indeed, of difficulty in the Bill, the point which arises on Clauses 3, 8 and 11 in regard to the jurisdiction of the court in affiliation cases. I concede at once that to make the act of intercourse the basis of jurisdiction is something quite novel. I do not condemn it on that ground. I do not condemn any proposal for the amendment of our law on the ground that it introduces some novel principle. On the contrary, there is a lot of dead wood in our law that one would like to see cut out and a good deal of new wood that might well be grafted in.
However, there are difficulties about this matter. There is the obvious difficulty that in the material period prior to the birth of the child there may have been a number of acts of intercourse, some in one part of the United Kingdom and some in another. I am told that such cases of consecutive concupiscence are not unknown. That difficulty can be overcome and we contemplate overcoming it on the Committee

stage by providing that any act of intercourse which may have caused the birth will be sufficient to found the jurisdiction of the court. There are, however, other cases. The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned one, and I am bound to say that it occurred to me the other night as I was travelling up to the north of England in one of those excellent sleeping compartments provided by British Railways. I observed that it had a communicating door into the next compartment, and I watched with curiosity, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton is apparently inquiring, to see what might happen. As a matter of fact, nothing happened. All was well. The door remained closed. On inquiry I found that the hon. Member for Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) was travelling in the next compartment. I suppose that it might occur, as the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested, that the sleeping compartments of the Scottish express might be used by sleeping partners for the purpose of clandestine concubinage.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I did not make any suggestion of that sort, but I would be interested to know why the right hon. and learned Gentleman seeks to retain the proof of this fact as a basis for jurisdiction between English and Scottish courts.

The Attomey-Geaeral: I am coming to that. I have emphasised these difficulties only for the purpose of assuring the hon. and learned Gentleman that we have had these points very much in mind. For the most part, I cannot help thinking that difficulties of the kind which have been canvassed here—such as the last one about "Where was the train at the material time?" —are difficulties of a theoretical rather than a real nature.
The difficulty which we have had to face in drafting the Bill is really this. Under the law as it exists at present, as the House will understand, jurisdiction in these cases is in general that of the place—I am taking now the case of England and Northern Ireland—in which the mother resides, provided that the putative father is also within Northern Ireland or England as the case may be. In Scotland, following what is the more usual practice, jurisdiction depends on the residence of the defendant. The result is that the Eng-


lish girl seduced in England by a Scotsman resident in Scotland has to go to Scotland, under the existing law in order to obtain her affiliation order. A Scottish girl seduced by an Englishman, if such a case arose, can only sue in England if she first acquires a residence in England. In both cases a very inconvenient situation results, and the problem was, how to resolve that difficulty.
The Bill proposes, so far as Northern Ireland and England are concerned, to extend the jurisdiction in two ways: first, by giving the courts of the residence of the mother jurisdiction notwithstanding the fact that the putative father is outside England, or Northern Ireland as the case may be; secondly, by giving jurisdiction to the courts of the residence of the defendant notwithstanding that the mother resides elsewhere. In the case of Scotland the Bill extends the jurisdiction by giving it to the court of the residence of the mother although the defendant is living in another part of the United Kingdom.
If the matter had been left there, as I understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to suggest, the result would be that the defendent in Scotland, deprived of the protection which he has under the existing law of only being sued in the country and under the law of his residence, might, for instance, find himself summoned by a complainant at Land's End in a case where all the evidence was really Scottish evidence. It was felt strongly that it would be wrong to make a man who is resident in one country answerable to the courts of another country unless the conduct for which he is called upon to answer has been committed in that country.
A woman in England ought not to be allowed to proceed in England against a putative father resident in Scotland where the intercourse took place in Scotland, because the whole basis of the proceeding is something which really occurred not in England but in Scotland. I think it is true as a general rule not invariably, but as a general rule—to say that the material evidence usually is to be found in the place where intercourse has taken place—evidence by the chambermaid from the small hotel, for instance. That is why we came to the conclusion that in the generality of cases it probably would be

convenient to make this the test of jurisdiction, unusual as I agree that test must be. However, we will consider between now and the Committee stage the arguments raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman. If we can find any other convenient test to avoid the kind of difficulty I explained to the House, we will see whether we can introduce it but, so far, although a lot of thought has been given to the matter, no other suitable test has been found.
That was the only real point of principle which arose in connection with this Bill. Other matters of detail were raised and we may have an opportunity of considering them in Committee, but the general principles have received unanimous approval and I think we are all agreed that the intentions of this Bill are honourably to enforce the obligations of those who have not had honourable intentions.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — CENTRAL LAND BOARD (FORM L.39)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Sparks.]

9.59 p.m.

Sir John Mellor: I want to refer to Form L.39 which was issued by the Central Land Board, but first I must refer to another Form, S.1, which was issued to owners of freehold and leasehold interests in land who wished to claim that their land had depreciated in value as a result of the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. This Form S.1 was issued to enable them to make a claim on the £300 million which in due course is to be administered under a Treasury scheme. The claims had to be lodged on Form S.1 not later than 30th June last year. This form contained 28 questions, the answers to the last three of which, however, were stated in the form to be optional.

It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Royle.]

Sir J. Mellor: Question No. 27, one of the last three questions, was very important. It demanded an estimate of the restricted value of the land and also of the unrestricted value, the difference between the two being supposed to represent the development value of which the owner had been deprived. It was made quite clear in the instructions at the commencement of Form S.1 that claimants need not answer the last three questions. It was also made clear, however, that if claimants wished to obtain from the Central Land Board a contribution to the cost which they incurred in obtaining professional advice, then the answers to the last three questions must be completed and the form be signed by the professional advisers of the claimants.
Many people preferred instead to leave the last three questions unanswered. They then contemplated that the matter would be dealt with by the district valuer. If they were dissatisfied in due course with his assessment, they had, of course, the right to go to arbitration. I have had a letter from a very eminent surveyor in Birmingham, who in referring to the election of very many people to leave the last three questions unanswered said this:
I think there were two main reasons for this. Firstly, that there was (and in fact still is) a great deal of uncertainty as to the true restricted values of property. Secondly, the time allowed for submitting these claims. In many cases it was quite impossible to obtain professional advice and to give full consideration to figures.
During the period when these claims were being prepared, my office was regularly open until 10 o'clock at night, and in some instances members of the staff were even staying after midnight. The work involved in inspecting hundreds of properties was enormous, and I am sorry to say that in a number of cases we had to tell property owners that we were so busy that we could not deal with their claims.
At the end of last year and the beginning of this year the form about which I am now complaining was issued by the Central Land Board to, I think, over 100,000 claimants. This Form L.39 contained the following—I will read only the more essential part:
The Board are advised, on the information before them, that your property is already

so developed that the right to carry out any further kind of development cannot add one-tenth to the restricted value, and that you do not therefore qualify for a payment in respect of any loss in the value of your interest resulting from the provisions of the Act.
If, however, you wish to press your claim the Board will require to know:—

(1) the kind of development for which you think the property has a value which would add more than one-tenth to the restricted value, and
(2) the additional value you think it would have for that purpose.
Accordingly the Board hereby give you notice under Regulation 5 of the Claims for Depreciation of Land Values Regulations, 1948 … to send this information to the Board not later than. …
Regulation 10 of these Regulations provides that the right to receive a payment is conditional upon due and punctual compliance with the Provisions of Regulation 5. If you do not give the required information to the Board by the date specified your claim will automatically lapse.
It will be observed that the two questions asked in that form are virtually identical with that contained in question 27 of S.1, namely, the inquiry as to what is the estimate of the claimant of the restricted value of the unrestricted value of the land which, I would remind the House, was one of the optional questions. If claimants had known that they were going to be required to answer such questions they would undoubtedly have endeavoured to obtain professional advice and got their advisers to complete the last three questions in S.1. Then they would have had the advantage of obtaining a contribution from the Central Land Board to the cost of obtaining that professional advice.
They are now in this difficulty; it is too late for them to re-submit S.1 under which they could make that claim for contribution towards the fees because S.1 could not be submitted after 30th June, 1949. Either they have to answer the questions without professional advice—and obviously it is extremely difficult for any layman to answer such a question on his own—or obtain professional advice and pay for it themselves. They are thus being robbed of the option which was given in Form S.1.
Therefore, I feel the Government should be prepared to re-open the question at least in the sense of undertaking to give anyone who does furnish the information required under L.39 the contribution they


would have obtained towards their professional expenses had they completed the last three questions in S.1.
On 18th April I asked the following Question of the Minister of Town and Country Planning:
How many Forms L.39 have been sent to owners of property by the Central Land Board; how many have been withdrawn; why they were sent; and why withdrawn?
He replied:
One hundred thousand and eighty-three, of which less than 300, sent in error, were withdrawn. The forms were sent to owners of single dwelling-houses to ascertain whether their claims to compensation were admissible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 18th April. 1950; Vol. 474, c. 1–2.]
I wrote to the Minister of Town and Country Planning to tell him I had evidence at my disposal to show that his statement that less than 300 of these forms were withdrawn was clearly inaccurate and a gross understatement. His answer to that letter is only material on this point—no doubt the Parliamentary Secretary has it—in that he sticks to his statement that under 300 had been withdrawn.
From the same surveyor whom I have already quoted I received this passage in a letter:
Immediately we received the forms L.39 we found that 37 of the 75 received were not in respect of single dwelling-houses. In accordance with the Press notice issued by the Central Land Board on 24th January we therefore returned them to the Central Land Board,
and in each case they obtained this reply:
With reference to your letter, dated … it is regretted that Form L.39 was sent in error in respect of the property mentioned above. The claim will now be re-assessed.
Another very eminent surveyor also sent me a letter on this point:
We find that from this office we have returned 60 such forms, and we have letters agreeing to their being withdrawn.
So it will be seen that from two firms alone I have obtained information that altogether 97 forms were returned by them and their withdrawal was accepted by the Central Land Board. It is, therefore, quite clear that the figure given by the Minister must have been a very gross understatement. I will see what the Parliamentary Secretary has to say. In a very large number of cases these forms have been objected to by claimants, and in every case I know in which objection was lodged the Central Land Board has

withdrawn the form and said that the claim would proceed to be assessed in the ordinary manner.
I say that this Form L.39 should never have been issued at all because it denied to those people who received it the option which was inherent in Form S.1. If Form L.39 is to be persisted in all people who reply to it with the benefit of professional advice should certainly receive the due contribution in respect of the expenses which they have thereby incurred, and anyone who has already incurred such expense should be compensated for it.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: I am grateful for the opportunity to reinforce briefly what has been so ably expressed by my hon. Friend. He has done a considerable service in ventilating this matter because amongst people concerned with these things the issue of Form L.39 has undoubtedly created a good deal of resentment and surprise. There are two reasons for that. The first is because it has created an appearance of administrative muddle. The second is because it has given the impression that the Central Land Board are trying to get for themselves the best of both worlds and to impose on claimants the worst of both worlds. My hon. Friend has explained how this comes about in relation to the Form S.1 on which claims on the fund were made.
There is no doubt that a large number of claimants forwent the advantage of having a contribution to their professional fees in respect of valuation because they chose to leave out the optional part of the form, that is to say, they chose not to put any precise valuation upon their estimate of development value. They did that, as my hon. Friend explained, either because of difficulties as to time or because in all the uncertainties of the situation it was felt to be an advantage to put the ball in the district valuer's court, as it were, and impose upon him the obligation of making the first valuation.
Having taken that course in good faith and on assumption based on the notes attached to Form S.1, the receipt of the Form L.39 has seemed to many people an act of bad faith and to some of them also an act that was bad in law. I have no doubt so far as the legal


position is concerned, that the demands of Form L.39 are perfectly legal within the framework of the Depreciation of Land Values Regulations. I say no more as to that. But so far as the other point is concerned, whether or not the Central Land Board have acted reasonably, which is a question for this House—not merely whether they have acted lawfully but whether they have acted reasonably, fairly and with propriety—I would say this.
I understand, and the Parliamentary Secretary will confirm whether or not this is so, that the intention of the Form L.39 was to compel an evaluation or abandonment of the claim in the case of those dwelling-houses where it appeared to the Board prima facie to be probable that it might be excluded under the de minimis provisions of Section 63 of the 1947 Act. Presumably that was the intention with a view to saving administrative labour and expense in the making by the Inland Revenue of valuations of claims in respect of dwelling-houses which they felt had been put in as what are sometimes called protective claims, that is to say, as an insurance in case a claim might arise out of the Act.
Where that surmise is correct, and the claims would be eliminated on the de minimis principle, there would be, in any event, no right of contribution for professional fees; and so, if the issue of Form L.39 had been strictly confined to those cases where protective claims had been put in in respect of dwelling-houses, perhaps my hon. Friend and the various people concerned with this matter would have had no ground for complaint. But what happened, of course, was that these Forms L.39 were broadcast on a far wider basis than that which I have described or than was justified. I understand that the principle which has been followed is that they have been withdrawn in cases other than dwelling-houses, and presumably the Parliamentary Secretary will admit that there is some foundation for the argument that they should never have been issued at all in those cases. I think the Parliamentary Secretary should take the opportunity of telling the House how this happened, because he will appreciate that it gives an impression of muddle and unnecessary labour and expense, arouses irritation, and is one of the things which is liable to give town planning, for which

he is partially responsible, a bad name in the country.
May I draw the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to one point of difficulty which still remains even after the withdrawal of these Forms L.39? As I understand it, they are left in operation and not withdrawn in cases of dwelling-houses where the real claim for loss of development value is not based on a loss of development value by structural extension, but a loss of development value by way of change of use. For example, one loss of development value is the changing of a house into offices. I give the Parliamentary Secretary an obvious example where this applies. In a small country town, indeed in many towns, it is not uncommon to have houses in the High Street, for example, over shops. Those houses have an obvious development value for conversion into offices.
I could cite a recent case where development charge in a country town in one such instance was assessed at £250. In those cases where loss of development value is based on change of use, if Form L.39 is served and not withdrawn it means that the owners have to make the first essay in valuation, and that necessarily involves professional fees by way of surveyors. For these they have no rights of contribution if they did not fill in the optional part of the Form S.1. I submit that in those cases the use of Form L.39 is unjustified, albeit a dwelling-house is the subject of the form, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell the House that he is prepared to give further attention to that aspect of the case.

10.20 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Lindgren): I am grateful to the hon. Baronet the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) for providing an opportunity for me to clear up what is obviously a misconception, particularly as he and such a knowledgeable person in town planning matters as the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) appear to be confused.
First, I will give the history of the matter. The Form S.1 to which the hon. Baronet referred is for making claims on £300 million for loss of development value. Twelve months were allowed in which those claims should be made. It


was a surprise to me, having some knowledge and background of town planning, when I went to my present Ministry and found that 500,000 of these claims were made in the last week. To my simple mind, it was obvious that that was not just an accident. I am still trying to find the real reason why professional men advising clients kept back 500,000 claims until the last week.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I can give the Parliamentary Secretary the answer to that. They were grossly overworked by the demands made upon them.

Mr. Lindgren: That is not the answer because, being an office worker, I know that one completes a job and then forwards it to the office to which it should go. All these claims were kept until the last week, when they were handed in to the various regional offices of the Central Land Board. Obviously, that caused a strain on the administrative machine. I do not infer that it was the intention of the professional people to break the machinery of the Central Land Board, but it caused a strain.
The Press, to whom we were grateful, had pointed out over a period the rights of people in the matter of claims. There were such graphic headlines in the Press as, "£300 million going begging." Naturally, property owners thought, "If it is going begging, why should not I have a dip in the pool?" Therefore, when the claims came in it was obvious that many of them—a large proportion of them—had been made in the hope that if there was anything going, the claimants would get something, but they did not expect anything. They were obviously ruled out under Section 63. I am not au fait with the Latin phrase which means that in small matters the law does not take account. If those people employed professional men, they ought to have been advised that under Section 63 they had no claim.
Some administrative machinery had to be set up to deal with these claims which it was obvious did not qualify. Therefore, it was decided by the Central Land Board that people should be given the option of justifying their claims, to clear away some of the small claims which had been made and avoid cluttering up the machine. Those were claims for single

houses where it was fairly clear to those in the office that there was no opportunity for more than a 10 per cent. increase in value. They went to the district valuer and were vetted by him. A Press statement was made that Form L.39 was used only in the case of claims for single houses.
But in offices of a large administration there are bound to be slight misconceptions about office instructions. As an office worker myself, I know that I have interpreted circulars from head office in a different manner from some of my colleagues in other Regional Offices. In some of the district offices they said, "There are two semi-detached houses here. Obviously, even with those two together in the same ownership, there cannot be an increase of 10 per cent. in value"; and forms were sent out to cases other than those which were single houses in certain areas. In order to keep faith, the Central Land Board felt, quite rightly, having made the Press statement, that where the forms had been sent out to other than single owners, they should be withdrawn.
To deal with the point raised by the hon. Baronet, my right hon. Friend was quite correct in the light of the information before him when he answered the hon. Baronet's Question. The Regional Offices did not start to send out these forms until the middle of March. The hon. Baronet put down his Question on 28th March, but it was not answered until 18th April. The hon. Gentleman knows the procedure in getting information for the answers to Questions. We obtained the information but, through a fault of our own, for which we accept responsibility, we did not check to find out the absolutely latest figures on the day the Minister answered the Question. At the time the information came from the Central Land Board, the figure of 300 was correct, but it related to 1st April, whereas the Question was answered on 18th April. The figures today are between 1,500 and 2,000 forms recalled out of the 102,000 issued.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: There seem to have been an awful lot of mistakes.

Mr. Lindgren: If the right hon. Gentleman knew more about the matter, he would not have made that interjection.

Mr. Hudson: I know much more about administration than the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Lindgren: I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman if he wishes to rise.
Let me now deal with the major factor. The substantial point raised by the hon. Baronet and by his hon. Friend the Member for Hertford is that these people have lost the opportunity of recovering professional costs. Well, they have not. The arrangement was made at the time of the discussions in regard to the issue of Form L.39 that, where professional advice had been sought and submitted in considering a claim, the costs were also admitted subject to the claim being proved. Even in the case of Form S.1 provision was made for professional costs only if the claim was substantiated. So also in the case of Form L.39 if a claim is made with professional assistance and is substantiated, these costs are met—I ought perhaps to be more careful—in accordance with the agreed scale of charge laid down in regard to these professional services. Where anybody seeks professional assistance in relation to a substantiated claim, they can get their costs.

Mr. Walker-Smith: This is the first time that has been publicly announced.

Mr. Lindgren: I cannot say "publicly." I am informed that all the professional organisations know of it and that the arrangements were made with them when discussions took place in regard to the issue of Form L.39. The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right that we should not have issued the form unless we were satisfied of its legality and that it was within the knowledge of the professional organisations.
The other point raised by the hon. Member for Hertford concerns the loss of development value in the cases of single houses where there is a possibility of change of use. There is not only the question of change of use, but a requirement of planning permission before change of use can come about, and if, in fact, a single property owner feels that there is the possibility of change of use and that he has a claim in regard to it— not a fictitious claim, but a real one—it is not unreasonable to ask him to sub stantiate his claim. It has been said that 102,000 forms were issued——

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'Clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Half-past Ten o'Clock.